Ffs-su-5217-A

FFS-SU-5217-A
DESIGN OF FIXED PLATFORM STRUCTURES
APPLICATION: FIXED PLATFORMS
This document is the confidential property of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Neither

the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to any third
party without the prior written consent of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Neither the
whole nor any part of this document may be reproduced, stored in any
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic,
mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written consent of Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Rev
Date
Description
Author
Sponsor
12/2007
General revision to CIV-SU-1.19
GNBE
MULI
12/2008
Document number change only.

Formerly CIV-SU-1.19-A
05/2009
General revision to FFS-SU-5217
GNBE
CWAN
07/2009
Reference to CPM-SU-2.03 changed to

FFS-SU-5221. No technical content change.
CWAN
CWAN
July 2009 (E)
CWAN
2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
1 of 134
Design of Fixed Platform Structures
FFS-SU-5217-A
CONTENTS
1.0
Scope ..........................................................................................................................4
2.0
References ..................................................................................................................4
2.1 ......Purchaser Documents ......................................................................................4
2.2 ......Industry Codes and Standards .........................................................................4
3.0
Acronyms ....................................................................................................................5
4.0
General Design Considerations ................................................................................6

4.1 ......Design Philosophy ............................................................................................6
4.2 ......Design Basis ....................................................................................................6
4.3 ......System of Units ................................................................................................7
4.4 ......Datum Level .....................................................................................................7
4.5 ......Corrosion Protection .........................................................................................7
4.6 ......Allowable Stresses ...........................................................................................8
4.7 ......Factors of Safety ..............................................................................................9
4.8 ......Structural Materials/Structural Welding and Inspection ....................................9
4.9 ......Design Guidelines ..........................................................................................10
5.0
Jacket Design Considerations ................................................................................11

5.1 ......Computer Model .............................................................................................11
5.2 ......Pile Design .....................................................................................................13
5.3 ......Gravity Loads .................................................................................................16
5.4 ......Environmental Loading ...................................................................................18
5.5 ......In-Service Wave Analysis ...............................................................................19
5.6 ......In-Service Fatigue Analysis ............................................................................20
5.7 ......Computer Model .............................................................................................21
5.8 ......Transportation Strength Analysis ...................................................................24
5.9 ......Transportation Fatigue Analysis .....................................................................25
5.10 ....Launch Analysis .............................................................................................27
5.11 ....Jackets Lifted from Transportation Barges .....................................................29
5.12 ....Flotation and Upending ..................................................................................29
5.13 ....Jackets Installed Over Templates ..................................................................31
5.14 ....Loadout Analysis ............................................................................................31
5.15 ....On-Bottom Stability Analysis ..........................................................................32
5.16 ....Barge Stability ................................................................................................32
5.17 ....Seismic Analysis ............................................................................................33
5.18 ....Member Design ..............................................................................................33
5.19 ....Tubular Joint Design ......................................................................................34
5.20 ....Vortex Shedding .............................................................................................35
5.21 ....Wave Slam .....................................................................................................36
5.22 ....Hydrostatic Design .........................................................................................36
5.23 ....Grouted Connections .....................................................................................37
5.24 ....Vessel Impact .................................................................................................37
6.0
Deck Design Considerations ..................................................................................38

6.1 ......Computer Model .............................................................................................38
6.2 ......Environmental Loading ...................................................................................38
July 2009 (E)
2 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
6.3 ......In-Service Analysis .........................................................................................39

6.4 ......Transportation Strength Analysis ...................................................................39
6.5 ......Transportation Fatigue Analysis .....................................................................40
6.6 ......Lifting Analysis ...............................................................................................41
6.7 ......Loadout Analysis ............................................................................................43
6.8 ......Barge Stability ................................................................................................43
6.9 ......Local Vibrations ..............................................................................................43
6.10 ....Member Design ..............................................................................................43
6.11 ....Tubular Joint Design ......................................................................................44
6.12 ....Vortex Shedding .............................................................................................44
6.13 ....Primary Beam and Plate Girder Design .........................................................44
6.14 ....Dropped Objects ............................................................................................45
6.15 ....Fire and Blast .................................................................................................45
7.0
Appurtenance Design Considerations ...................................................................45

7.1 ......Boat Landings ................................................................................................45
7.2 ......Barge Bumpers ..............................................................................................46
7.3 ......Riser Guards ..................................................................................................46
7.4 ......Riser Clamps ..................................................................................................46
7.5 ......Sumps and Pump Casings .............................................................................46
7.6 ......Walkways, Stairways, and Landings ..............................................................47
7.7 ......Containment, Curbs, Handrails, Kick Plates, and Ladders ............................47
7.8 ......Crane Pedestals .............................................................................................47
7.9 ......Conductor Guide Framing ..............................................................................47
7.10 ....Skirt Pile Guide Framing ................................................................................48
7.11 ....Flooding and Grout System ............................................................................49
7.12 ....Bridge .............................................................................................................49
7.13 ....Vent and Flare Booms ....................................................................................50
7.14 ....Helideck ..........................................................................................................50
7.15 ....Mudmats .........................................................................................................50
7.16 ....J-Tubes ..........................................................................................................51
7.17 ....Installation Aids ..............................................................................................51
8.0
Design Documentation ............................................................................................51
Appendix A Assessment of Wind-Induced Vortex Shedding .......................................52

Appendix B Design Guideline for Vessel Impacts .........................................................53
Appendix C Design Guideline for Dropped Objects ......................................................81
Appendix D Design Guideline for Fire and Blast .........................................................100
July 2009 (E)
3 of 134

1.0
FFS-SU-5217-A
SCOPE
This specification establishes the minimum requirements for the design of bottom-founded
platform structures. Any exceptions to the requirements of this specification shall be submitted in
writing for resolution by the Purchaser.
2.0
REFERENCES
1. The following documents are referenced herein and are to be considered part of this
specification.
2. Use the edition of each referenced document in effect as of the date of the publication of this
specification.
3. Any conflict between the codes listed shall be brought to the Purchasers attention for
resolution.
2.1
2.2
Purchaser Documents
CIV-SU-1.28
Helidecks on Offshore Installations
COM-SU-2.02
Materials and Application of Painting and Protective Coatings
FFS-SU-5215
Structural Steel and Other Materials
FFS-SU-5216
Structural Welding and Inspection
FFS-SU-5221
Aluminum Alloy Anodes for Offshore Platform Cathodic Protection
SID-SU-5106
Safety in Designs
Industry Codes and Standards

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)
AISC Steel Construction Manual 13th edition
American Petroleum Institute (API)
RP 2A-LRFD
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed

Offshore PlatformsLoad and Resistance Factor Design
RP 2A-WSD
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed

Offshore PlatformsWorking Stress Design
Spec 2B
Specification for the Fabrication of Structural Steel Pipe
Bulletin 2U
Bulletin on Stability Design of Cylindrical Shells
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

RP-C203
Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures
RP-C205
Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads
RP-F105
Free Spanning Pipelines
International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA)

M 179
July 2009 (E)
Guidance on the Use of Cable Laid Slings and Grommets
4 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

2408
Steel Wire Ropes for General PurposesMinimum Requirements
7531
Wire Rope Slings for General PurposesCharacteristics and Specifications
Lloyds Register
Complex Joints Project Document (CJPD) 64
Lloyds Register of Shipping Recommended Parametric Stress
Concentration Factors for Ring Stiffened Tubular Joints,
Version 1.0, October 1989
Noble Denton Group (NDI)
0030
General Guidelines for Marine Transportations
Offshore Technology Conference

OTC004890
Recent Developments in the Design of Grouted Connections
United States Coast Guard (USCG)

Requirements for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
Other Documentation
Timoshenko, Stephen P., and J. Gere. 1961. Theory of elastic stability (Engineering Society
Monographs). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies
3.0
ACRONYMS
AFCApproved for Construction
CDRCumulative-Damage Ratio
COGCenter of Gravity
DLDead Load
FEAFinite Element Analysis
FPSFoot, Pound, Second
GMLGravity, Metacentric, Longitudinal
GMTGravity, Metacentric, Transverse
HAZOPHazard and Operability
HSEHealth and Safety Evaluation
LATLowest Astronomical Tide
LLLive Load
MLWMean Low Water
MMSMinerals Management Service
RAOResponse Amplitude Operator
ROVRemotely Operated Vehicle
SCFStress Concentration Factor
July 2009 (E)
5 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
SFSafety Factor
TKYTypes of Tubular Joints
4.0
GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4.1
Design Philosophy
1. Global design of the structural system and design of individual components shall consider
appropriate loadings for all phases of platform life.
2. Pre-service conditions include construction/fabrication, loadout, tow to site, launch (or lift),
and upending of jacket.
3. Interim construction conditions include lowering, docking, and mating of various jacket
sections, pre-piled on-bottom stability, jacket leveling, pile driving, and installation of the
various deck sections or modules.
4. In-service conditions include extreme storm events, operating conditions, fatigue analysis, and
other analyses as appropriate such as seismic, mud slide, boat impact, dropped object, fire and
blast, etc.
5. Member sizes and components shall be selected on the basis of fitness, strength, stability, and
economy.
6. Analyses shall demonstrate that all components of the structure have been adequately
designed for design conditions and that all stresses, deformations, etc. are within allowable
limits.
4.2
Design Basis
1. If not provided by Purchaser, a design basis document shall be prepared before starting the
front-end engineering of a jacket or a deck structure and, as appropriate, be updated for detail
design. As a minimum, this document shall include information in Table 1.
Table 1:
Minimum Design Basis Content
Topic
Details
Site data
Location, water depth, platform orientation, sea bed condition such as bottom slope,
contour, sub-sea well, pipelines, etc.
Operational data
Drilling rig size and layout, drilling rig space requirement, number of conductors and
their sizes, export pipelines, incoming pipelines and their location and sizes.
Topside requirements
Open area loads, equipment layouts, equipment weights, platform crane loads, bridge
loads, evacuation routes, access platforms, survival crafts, stairways.
Environmental criteria
Wave, current, and wind descriptions for all conditions of the platforms for which
engineering analyses shall be required.
Hydrodynamic criteria
Drag and inertia coefficients, added mass, marine growth allowances, roughness
coefficients, current blockage factors.
Geotechnical criteria
Soil boring log, ultimate pile-capacity curves, P-Y data, T-Z and Q-Z data, mudmat
bearing pressure, expected soil resistance to driving (SRD).
Corrosion protection
Water resistivities, cathodic protection criteria, coating requirement.
Structural concept
Platform configuration, number of legs, lifted, launched jacket, deck size, number of
levels.
July 2009 (E)
6 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
2. Some of the above design information may not be available at the start of the project, in which
case the design engineer shall select criteria/data based on past experiences from similar
projects and in consultation with Purchaser. All assumed data shall be noted and continually
updated as and when actual site-specific data become available.
3. Safety of the structures, the facilities, and, in particular, the people (for manned platform)
should be given the utmost consideration. Safe escape routes and protection against explosion
and fire should be considered in the design detailing of the platform.
4.3
System of Units
Unless another system of units such as SI (meter, kg, sec) is accepted by Purchaser, the U.S.
customary units, foot, pound, second (FPS), shall be used throughout all documentation, drawings,
and calculations. If another system of units is used, then the drawings and documents referencing
liquid measures, weight masses, and major dimensions in general arrangement drawings should
have an equivalent FPS unit noted in parentheses at the direction of Purchaser.
4.4
Datum Level
All elevations shall be referenced to Mean Low Water (MLW).
4.5
Corrosion Protection
4.5.1
Splash Protection
1. Splash zone generally refers to the area that is exposed to seawater and air at different
times.
a. The splash zone elevations depend on tide range, normal operating wave heights,
and water depth uncertainty.
b. Supplier shall use project-specific data provided by Purchaser for splash zone
information.
2. All jacket primary structural members, such as legs, diagonal bracing, horizontal
bracing, and risers shall be protected with splash zone coatings in accordance with
COM-SU-2.02.
3. Items located within the splash zone excluded from this requirement include boat
landings, barge bumpers, riser supports, and temporary attachments such as buoyancy
tanks, flood lines, and grout lines.
4.5.2
Coatings
All steel surfaces above the splash zone and items located in the splash zone that have
been excluded from the splash zone coating such as boat landings, barge bumpers, riser
supports, and other temporary attachments shall be coated with a coating system
consisting of a self-cured inorganic zinc primer, polyamide epoxy (high-build)
intermediate coat, and aliphatic polyurethane top coat in accordance with COM-SU-2.02.
4.5.3
Cathodic Protection
1. Cathodic protection shall be provided for all jacket members, appurtenances, and
conductors below MLW including the items coated in the splash zone below MLW.
2. Protection shall be by aluminum alloy sacrificial anodes.
July 2009 (E)
7 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
3. Design of the jacket cathodic-protection system shall be in accordance with

FFS-SU-5221.
4. The submerged zone shall include the jacket, boat landings, riser guards, disposal
sumps, caissons, conductors above the mudline, barge bumpers, and other
permanently attached appurtenances.
5. The area of the top 20 feet (6 m) of the interior of an open skirt pile shall be
considered in determining the surface area of the submerged zone.
6. The below-mudline zone shall include the jacket below mudline, piling below
mudline, and conductors below mudline.
4.5.4
Corrosion Allowance
1. Jacket legs and joint cans, primary vertical and diagonal jacket braces, and caissons
that are located in the splash zone shall be protected by a inch-thick (6 mm)
corrosion allowance.
2. Horizontal members at the top of the jacket do not require corrosion allowance
provided they are positioned above the splash zone.
3. Appurtenances such as boat landings, barge bumpers, riser guards, etc., do not require
a corrosion allowance.
4.6
Allowable Stresses
1. If Working Stress Design is used, the basic allowable stresses shall be increased for the various
design conditions as shown in Table 2. (An allowable stress ratio of 1.00 indicates no increase
in allowable stresses.)
Table 2:
Allowable Stress Multiplier (1 of 2)
Design Conditions
Allowable Stress Ratio
Global In-Service
Extreme storm
1.33
Operating storm
1.00
Vessel hydrotest
1.00
Global Pre-Service
Loadout
1.00
Launchstillwater
1.00
Launchenvironmental forces
1.33
Transportationcargo
1.33
Transportationtie-downs*
1.00
Lift
1.00
On-bottom stabilitystillwater condition
1.00
On-bottom stabilitystillwater with wave
1.33
Pile installationcombined axial and bending stress
1.00
Pile installationaxial, bending, and driving stress
1.67
Local In-Service
Boat impactboat landing, barge bumper, riser guard
1.33
Wave slamjacket member
1.33
July 2009 (E)
8 of 134

Table 2:
FFS-SU-5217-A
Allowable Stress Multiplier (2 of 2)
Design Conditions
Allowable Stress Ratio
Local Pre-Service
Transportation wave slam
1.33
Launch slamjacket member
1.33
* Tie downs and structural members attached directly to tie-downs
2. An increase in the allowable stresses for the interim construction phases shall be discussed and
agreed upon by Purchaser and Supplier during the detailed design phase.
4.7
Factors of Safety
1. If working stress design is used, the factors of safety in Table 3 shall be applied to the ultimate
capacity of the soil for the design conditions.
Table 3:
Factors of Safety for Soil
Design Condition
Factor of Safety
Foundation
Pile penetrationextreme storm
1.50
Pile penetrationoperating storm
2.00
On-bottom stabilitystillwater*
2.00
On-bottom stabilitystillwater with wave*
1.50
* Factor of safety against sliding, overturning, and bearing capacity
2. If Working Stress Design is used, the factors of safety in Table 4 shall be applied to the
collapse pressure of tubular members for the design conditions.
Table 4:
Factors of Safety for Collapse Pressure of Tubular Members
Design Condition
Factor of Safety
Tubular member hydrostatic collapse

Extreme storm
1.50
Operating storm
2.00
Installationjacket launch and upending
2.00
Installationjacket laying on bottom*
1.25
Buoyancy tanks
2.00
* This is a case indicating failure of the jacket to float. If appropriate, supplier may
propose in writing a design depth other than jacket laying on bottom for review by
Purchaser.
4.8
Structural Materials/Structural Welding and Inspection

1. Material requirements for jacket, deck, pile foundation, and miscellaneous items such as
lifting eyes, ring stiffeners, and joint cans can be found in FFS-SU-5215.
2. Structural welding and inspection requirements can be found in FFS-SU-5216.
July 2009 (E)
9 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
3. To facilitate better communication of required steel grade, steel toughness, and NDE
inspection type and percentage during fabrication, the Supplier shall classify all structural
components into design class categories similar to the following, including a suitable AFC
drawing tracking methodology. Reference ISO 19902, Annex D. The Supplier shall submit the
specifics to Purchaser.
a. Special Application or Critical Structure
b. Primary Structure
c. Secondary Structure
d. Tertiary or Ancillary Structure
4.9
Design Guidelines
1. Due consideration shall be given to the following to develop a safe and optimized structural
design of the platform:
a. If the jacket needs to be launched, then buoyancy shall be considered from the beginning
of design, and the members shall be sized accordingly. Supplier shall design to avoid use
of external buoyancy tanks, if possible.
b. Reasonable attempts at sizing members shall be made to attain final unity checks in the
range of 0.90 to 0.95 for primary members in the same member group and for the final
AFC member configuration.
c. The use of stiffner plates for strengthening beams or tubulars shall be avoided as a design
aid.
d. Ring stiffeners used for joint strengthening at launch trusses shall have smooth transitions
to the connecting members to reduce local stress concentration.
e. If materials over 2 -inches (63.5 mm) thick are required, additional pre-qualification
testing requirements (e.g., CTOD) shall be required as specified in FFS-SU-5215.
f.
Brace diameter to joint can diameter ratios should be limited to a range of 0.5 to 0.9 as
appropriate. A higher ratio is preferable from a structural standpoint.
g. The design goal should be to achieve simplicity in configuration and ease of construction
and installation.
h. Safety of the designed structures and facility shall be the top priority and shall not be
compromised under any circumstances. Walkways, ladders, stairs, boat landings, etc.,
shall be designed and detailed to maximize their safe use and conform to the requirements
of SID-SU-5106.
i.
Plate material with enhanced through-thickness properties shall be used at joints where
tensile forces are transferred across the thickness of the plate.
2. All appurtenances such as boat landings, barge bumpers, riser guards, etc., that can be
damaged shall be detailed such that they can be removed easily for replacement. They shall
also be designed for water depth adjustments.
3. Deck plate may be modeled to incorporate in-plane shear restraint or to provide lateral bracing
to beam flanges. Grating shall not be modeled to provide in-plane shear restraint or lateral
beam-flange restraint.
July 2009 (E)
10 of 134

5.0
JACKET DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
5.1
Computer Model
FFS-SU-5217-A
1. Structural models shall represent all effects contributing to loads, actions, stiffness, etc., of a
structure and shall contain sufficient detail to accurately represent the weight, buoyancy,
stability, stiffness and environmental force characteristics of the structure.
2. An integrated 3D model of the jacket, piling, major appurtenances, and deck contributing to
the stiffness of the structural system shall be used for in-service analyses.
a. For substructure design, the deck shall be modeled in sufficient detail to accurately
represent stiffness and interaction with the jacket.
b. The effect of the added thickness of jacket members for corrosion allowance shall not be
used in the in-service analyses (i.e., operating storm, design event, seismic, etc.).
3. Pre-service analysis models shall include any pre-installed sections of piling and/or
appurtenances.
4. The additional strength of the increased wall thickness for corrosion allowance may be used in
the pre-service analyses.
5. If the eccentricity of a brace at a joint is more than D/4 or 12 inches (300 mm), then the
eccentricity of the brace shall be modeled. A separate joint shall be coded on the chord
member along the line of the eccentricity with the brace/member connected to that joint.
6. Computer models shall include all primary structural members. Joint cans and brace stubs
shall be modeled for primary members. In some cases it may be appropriate to model a joint
along a member at wall-thickness transitions such as at the ends of thick-walled joint cans.
Supplier shall discuss with Purchaser where this should be done.
7. Dead loads and environmental loads on secondary members and appurtenances shall be
included in models.
8. The computer model shall properly take into account the way the piles are connected to the
legs.
a. For non-grouted piles, the piles and legs shall be modeled as separate elements using the
wishbone modeling technique to properly simulate the pile-leg contact at each jacket
bracing level, and a fixed connection at the pile-leg shim connection at the top of the leg.
b. For grouted piles, the Supplier shall discuss with the Purchaser whether modeling a
composite section is adequate, or if the pile and leg should be modeled as separate
elements, with adjustments made for grout weight and at nodes to facilitate proper
punching-shear analysis. Reasons for using separate elements include cases in which the
pile and leg are of different material grades.
9. Appurtenances such as conductors, risers, and caissons shall be included as load collectors for
wave and current in-service conditions, but shall not contribute to structural or foundation
stiffness unless these members are framed such that they contribute to the structural and/or
foundation stiffness.
a. The mass (including well casings and entrapped fluid) of these appurtenances shall be
appropriately modeled.
b. The ends of such non-structural elements shall be appropriately released such that they
can only transfer loads and do not contribute to the global stiffness of the platform.
July 2009 (E)
11 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
10. Jacket non-structural items such as boat landings and anodes that are included solely to
distribute load to the main members shall be modeled as wave load areas and miscellaneous
masses.
11. Conductors shall be modeled such that they are not directly attached to the platform.
a. Vertical loads shall be carried by the soil. Lateral loads shall be transferred to the platform
structure by bearing against the guides.
b. If the jacket structure has mudline framing with conductor guides, all conductors shall be
modeled (preferably as foundation piles) to take proper account of the resistance they add
to lateral structure deflection.
c. Wishbones with proper releases at the ends shall be used at all horizontal levels with
conductor guides to ensure that the conductors transfer lateral loads only, not axial loads.
d. For conductors with a large annulus between the conductor and the guide, a gap element
may be used.
12. When conductors are used as foundation elements for global in-place analyses, a separate inplace stress analysis with no conductors modeled shall be run to assure correct pile design. The
reasons for this analysis are as follows:
a. It is necessary to prevent under-sizing of piles.
b. In some cases where soil is strong, the conductors may take out more lateral load at the
mudline than they contribute to the structure.
c. Maximum pile lateral shear shall occur when no conductors are present.
13. The effects of marine growth on members in and below the splash zone shall be modeled.
14. For complex nodes or other locations where Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is called for,
Purchasers guidelines are as follows:
a. Ideally, one FEA model shall be used for detailed component strength analyses and SCF
development for input to fatigue analyses.
b. For thin-shell FEA, four-noded shell elements with full integration (four integration gauss
points) shall be used.
c. Finite elements, similar to Shell 181 in ANSYS or S4 in ABAQUS, shall be used.
d. For thick-shell analyses, such as castings and annular grout, an eight-noded solid brick
element shall be used.
e. In areas of high stress concentration the size/aspect ratio of the FEA mesh should be about
t t with a maximum of t 2t, where t is plate thickness.
f.
Only rectangular elements should be used in the high-stress concentration areas.

Triangular-shaped elements should be avoided.
g. A larger mesh size shall be acceptable farther away from high-stress areas.
h. Imposed displacement or load boundary conditions shall be located at sufficient distance
from the high-stress region of interest to insure accurate FEA results.
i.
July 2009 (E)
Von Mises stresses shall be determined at both the top and bottom side of the shell element
and at all element integration points. Von Mises stresses shall be extracted from the
connection nodes for direct comparison to allowable stresses.
12 of 134

j.
FFS-SU-5217-A
Stresses in hot-spot locations shall be evaluated for their degree of reality with respect to
the following:
1) Non-optimum mesh size/shape in hot-spot area.
2) Excessive stress gradient over adjacent elements.
3) Usage of thick-shell element sub-modeling instead of thin-shell modeling.
4) Usage of non-linear analysis to determine hot-spot actual size.
5) Physical revision of the component structural geometry to mitigate the hot-spot.
6) Good engineering judgment.
k. Allowable stresses for detailed FEA component strength evaluations shall be as follows:
1) In-place extreme (100-year RP) load condition. The maximum Von Mises stress (top
or bottom and at any integration point) in hot-spot locations shall be less than 0.9 Fy.
2) Operating (10-year RP) load condition. The maximum Von Mises stress (top or
bottom and at any integration point) away from hot-spot locations shall be less than
0.67 Fy.
5.2
Pile Design
5.2.1
Computer Model
1. A computer solution of coupled, non-linear, pile-structure interaction shall be required
for all in-place structural analyses.
2. An integrated, pile-structure computer model shall be used.
a. It shall consist of a non-linear representation of the foundation and a linear-elastic
model of the structure.
b. The behavior of the non-linear, soil-pile foundation system shall be modeled
under both extreme environmental design and operational loads.
c. All p-y and t-z curves shall be explicitly defined in the soil model and modified
for scour.
3. Jacket foundation support for modal and fatigue analyses may be modeled as springs
or with direct six-degree-of-freedom stiffness matrices.
4. Foundation spring and linear stiffness values, if used, shall be calculated using
platform loads that are representative of design conditions being considered.
5.2.2
Scour
Unless better site-specific data is available, a scour depth of 1.5 times the pile diameter or
five feet, whichever is less, shall be assumed.
5.2.3
Underdrive Allowance
1. For piles having thickened sections at the mudline, the pile wall thickness make-up
shall be designed to allow for the possibility of pile driving refusal before reaching the
design penetration.
July 2009 (E)
13 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
2. An underdrive allowance shall be provided by extending the length of heavy-wall

material in the vicinity of the mudline by the largest of the following:
a. Twenty feet (6.1 meters).
b. The difference between design penetrations using a safety factor of 1.35 and 1.50
for the 100-year-return-period storm.
c. The difference between design penetrations using a safety factor of 1.80 and 2.00
for the 5-year-return-period storm with associated full operations of the facility.
5.2.4
Overdrive Allowance
1. For piles having thickened sections at the mudline, the pile wall thickness make-up
shall be designed to allow for the possibility of pile driving beyond design penetration.
2. In instances where the pile is expected to encounter a specific bearing stratum or when
there are uncertainties in the soil data, an overdrive allowance of a minimum of
10 feet (3 m) shall be provided and the length of heavy-wall material in the vicinity of
the mudline shall be extended. Allowance shall also be made for grout shear keys,
when used.
3. The final value of the overdrive shall be determined by the Supplier with b, taking into
account items such as the following:
a. Level of uncertainty in the soil information (distance from nearest soil boring to
platform location, number, and quality of soil samples and types of in-situ and
laboratory soil tests, etc.).
b. Total length of piles.
c. Percentage of contribution from end bearing in the specific bearing stratum to the
total axial compressive pile capacity, etc.
5.2.5
Pile Drivability
1. A pile drivability analysis shall be performed to determine the required pile wall
thickness and hammer requirements for both continuous and interrupted driving
caused by the installation of add-on sections, the changing of hammers, etc.
2. A pile drivability analysis using a wave-equation program shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations made in the geotechnical reports.
3. Dynamic pile stresses during driving shall be limited to 90 percent of the pile material
yield stress.
4. The pile shall be checked with its tip both plugged and unplugged for a range of
hammer sizes.
5. For assessing drivability with steam hammers, the assumed global hammer efficiency
shall not exceed 70 percent without written verification of higher efficiencies from the
hammer manufacturer.
6. For assessing drivability with hydraulic hammers, the assumed global efficiency shall
not exceed 90 percent without written verification of higher efficiencies from the
hammer manufacturer.
July 2009 (E)
14 of 134

5.2.6
FFS-SU-5217-A
Pile Lengths
1. Main Piles
a. Pile section lengths shall be designed in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or
API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
b. Main piles shall have pile section lengths with stick-up lengths such that
slenderness ratio (kl/r) is less than 200.
c. For determining the slenderness ratio, the pile length under consideration shall
start at the last set of pile centralizers and an effective length factor (k) of 2.1 shall
be assumed.
d. The pile makeup shall be planned to avoid pile add-ons when the pile tip is at a
stratum where hard driving is expected such as granular or cemented soils or rock.
2. Vertical Skirt Piles
a. The stick-up height of single-piece, vertical skirt pile shall have a slenderness
ratio (kl/r) less than 200, in which the effective length factor (k) is 2.1.
b. The pile length (l) shall be equal to the fabricated pile length minus the
self-penetration length and the length from mudline up to the last set of
centralizers in the skirt pile sleeve. An effective length factor (k) of 2.1 shall be
assumed.
c. The self-penetration of the pile shall be based on the static ultimate soil resistance
with end bearing not to exceed the skin friction between the soil plug and inside
wall of the pile, using the remolded shear strength to compute skin friction in clay
soils, and with consideration given to the buoyancy of the pile and the hammer
weight.
d. Vertical skirt piles shall also be checked for the effects of current-induced VIV
using DNV RP-C205 and DNV RP-F105.
e. The lateral design load on the pile shall be the maximum of the following:
1) The maximum wave and current load corresponding to sea conditions
representative of the area during pile installation.
2) The lateral component of the gravity load resulting from the largest possible
deviation from the true vertical of the pile due to the existing gap between the
pile and pile sleeve, fabrication/installation tolerances, and pile deflection due
to current and wave loads, or 2 percent of the total hammer weight applied at
the hammer center of gravity, whichever is greatest.
f.
Pile stress checks shall be performed as follows:

1) Combined axial compression and bending using the static axial (fa) and
bending (fb) stresses with no increase in allowable stresses.
2) Combined static stress and driving stresses shall be governed by the more
stringent of API 2A-WSD or the following.
3) Combined static stress and driving stresses not to exceed the minimum yield
stress of the pile material (fa + fb + fd < Fy).
4) The axial component of pile stress due to pile self weight shall also be
checked by using Timoshenko, Theory of Elastic Stability, Section 2.12,
Buckling of Bar under Distributed Axial Load.
July 2009 (E)
15 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
g. VIV shall be evaluated for the pile stick-up during installation according to the
latest edition of DNV classification note 30.5 and DNV RP-F105 with a
maximum of 1 percent damping. Fatigue damage due to pile stick-up VIV shall be
taken into account.
5.2.7
Skirt Pile Connection to Jacket

The design for connection of the skirt piles to the structure shall assume a minimum grout
strength of 2,500 psi (17 MPa).
5.2.8
Pile Group Effects

1. Pile group effects shall be investigated for pile spacings less than four pile diameters.
2. Design of pile groups or clusters shall include group effects.
3. A reduction in lateral and axial capacity of the soil shall be required depending on pile
spacing, type of soil, structure geometry, and pile axial load.
5.2.9
Pile Soil Setup

The ultimate axial pile capacity shall be evaluated to account for time-dependent pile
capacity at the time of loading for each of the foundation design conditions.
5.3
Gravity Loads
5.3.1
Dead Load
1. The dead weight of the jacket includes jacket members plus all appurtenances such as
J-tubes, risers, caissons, conductors, barge bumpers, boat-landing, mudmats, anodes,
installation aids, etc. Pipeline weights including clamps and the gas or liquid that fills
the line shall also be considered.
2. For dynamic analyses, the jacket legs, conductors, and pipeline masses shall be
calculated based on make-up of the members, fluid inside the pipe (if applicable), and
added fluid masses for members submerged in water.
a. For grouted jacket legs, grout, pile, and enclosed water inside the pile shall be
considered.
b. For conductors, all pipe strings, grout, and fluids inside the conductors shall be
considered.
3. A minimum of 2.5 percent weight contingency shall be added to the theoretical
calculated steel weight for mill tolerance.
5.3.2
Drilling Loads
1. The drilling loads shall be established on the basis of the requirement of drilling
provided in the design basis.
2. The loads from the drill rig during drilling (operating) and non-drilling (storm case)
shall be considered.
3. Detail loads shall include skid beam reactions for each well location that include hook
load and associated pipe rack loads and the module weights.
4. Appropriate crane loads during drilling and operating condition shall be considered.
July 2009 (E)
16 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
5. Setback loads and pipe-rack loads shall be combined in a logical fashion to obtain the
necessary worst cases sought for the design.
5.3.3
Production Loads
1. The production loads are defined as the combined dead weight/mass of equipment and
skids, cranes, pipes, electrical, and instrumentation and their supports, plus liquid
loads within the vessels and pipes, plus stored commodities and consumables.
2. These shall represent all loads on the platform other than the structural weight of the
deck and the drill-rig weight.
5.3.4
Uniform Area Loads

1. Uniform area loads may be used for preliminary deck design during the initial stage of
the project, when actual equipment loads are not defined.
2. Unless specified otherwise in a design basis for a specific project, the deck surfaces
(plating or grating), deck beams, trusses and walkways shall be designed for the area
load as shown in Table 5.
Table 5:
Uniform Area Loads for Deck Design
Drilling deck
500 psf (2440 kg/m2)
Specified storage and laydown areas
500 psf (2440 kg/m2)
Drill deck (well bay area)
350 psf (1710 kg/m2)
Mezzanine deck
150 psf (730 kg/m2)
Mezzanine deck (separator and manifold area)
350 psf (1710 kg/m2)
Production deck
250 psf (1220 kg/m2)
Production deck (generator area, MCC building)
350 psf (1710 kg/m2)
Cellar deck
200 psf (980 kg/m2)
Walkways
100 psf (490 kg/m2)
3. A reduced percentage of area loading may be used for the design of truss girders, deck
columns, and jacket structures and pilings.
4. The reduction factors shown in Table 6 shall be used unless specified otherwise in the
design basis.
Table 6:
Load Reduction Factors
Descriptions
Main deck area loading
July 2009 (E)
Secondary
Girders &
Floor Beams
Truss
Girders
Deck
Columns
Jacket &
Pilings
100%
75%
67%
67%
Cellar deck area loadings
100%
75%
67%
67%
Walkways
100%
20%
0%
0%
17 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
5. When accurate actual equipment operating loads are defined, these actual equipment
loads, used in combination of DL and associated open-area LL (in lieu of uniform area
loads mentioned in Item 1 and 2 above), shall be used for subsequent detailed design
of topsides main steel and deck beams.
a. All deck beams shall be checked for the actual (wet) weight of the equipment.
b. For equipment placed directly on the deck surface without skids, the deck plate
shall be strengthened using a beam underneath the deck plate unless it can be
proved that the deck plate is adequate to support the load.
5.4
Environmental Loading
5.4.1
Wave and Current Forces

1. Wave and current forces for in-service analyses shall be computed using the Morison
equation and an appropriate wave theory, and shall assume that the current acts
simultaneously and co-linearly with the wave propagation unless stated otherwise on
the project metocean report.
a. Stream Function wave theory shall be used unless a different wave theory is
provided in the site-specific metocean study.
b. Current and wave particle velocities shall be added prior to force determination in
Morisons equation.
c. A wave-kinematics factor shall be taken from the site-specific metocean study or
based on the guidance in API RP 2A-WSD or LRFD if the site-specific report
does not contain a value.
2. For in-service spectral fatigue analyses, a wave kinematics factor of 1.0 shall be used.
3. For dynamically-sensitive structures such as deepwater fixed platforms or compliant
towers, in-service wave and current forces shall be computed using random-wave
analysis techniques using superimposed Airy wavelets. Supplier shall submit to
Purchaser the details of intended hydrodynamic analyses, both static and dynamic.
5.4.2
Wave Force Coefficients

1. Hydrodynamic wave coefficients for use in Morisons equation for extreme and
operating conditions shall be determined in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or
2. Due consideration shall be given to wake-encounter effects for nearly vertical
members (15 degrees from vertical or less) where the Kuelegan-Carpenter number
falls below 30. Supplier shall submit to Purchaser the details for appropriately
including wake-encounter effects.
3. Basic drag and inertia coefficients for use in the extreme and operating storms shall be
as provided in API RP 2A-WSD or LRFD, as applicable.
4. Hydrodynamic wave coefficients for use in Morisons equation for the spectral fatigue
analysis shall be constant with no variation for wake effect.
5. Drag and inertia coefficients for use in the spectral fatigue analysis shall be as
provided in API RP 2A-WSD or LRFD, as applicable.
July 2009 (E)
18 of 134

5.4.3
FFS-SU-5217-A
Wave Shielding
1. For extreme and operating conditions, wave shielding factors that account for wave
force reductions on closely spaced conductors shall be applied in accordance with
API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
2. For fatigue conditions, no benefit from wave shielding shall be applied.
5.4.4
Current Blockage Factors

1. Current blockage factors as a function of the number of platform legs and wave
direction are given in Table 7. For other conditions, factors shall be computed using
API RP 2A-WSD or LRFD, as applicable guidance.
Table 7:
Current Blockage Factors
No. of Legs
Heading
Factor
all
0.90
4
4
4
end-on
diagonal
broadside
0.90
0.85
0.80
8
8
8
end-on
diagonal
broadside
0.70
0.70
0.80
2. For either freestanding conductors or braced caissons, the blockage factor shall be 1.0.
5.4.5
Wind Forces
1. Wind forces shall be assumed to act omni-directionally, simultaneously, and
co-linearly with the wave and current forces unless stated otherwise on the project
metocean report.
2. The one-minute sustained wind speed associated with the wave condition shall be
used for pseudo-static substructure analysis.
3. The global wind load on the deck shall be determined by taking the projected area of
the deck with a shape factor of 1.0.
4. Wind loads on the flare boom shall be determined by considering all members and
pipes individually (i.e., without using projected area to calculate total wind force). The
three-second gust wind shall be used to design the flare boom structures.
5. For dynamically sensitive structures such as deepwater fixed platforms or compliant
towers, Supplier shall submit for Purchaser acceptance the details for completion of
both static and dynamic aerodynamic analyses including wind spatial coherence.
5.5
In-Service Wave Analysis

1. The platform shall be analyzed for a minimum of eight wave-and-wind-attack directions (at
45-degree intervals around the platform).
a. Wave directionality (i.e., different wave heights from different directions) shall be taken
into account in the analysis.
b. For each wave approach direction, waves shall be stepped through the structure to
determine the wave positions that cause maximum base shear and maximum overturning
moment.
July 2009 (E)
19 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
2. The in-service wave analysis shall include inertial loads due to wave-platform dynamic
response, if appropriate.
a. Platform dynamic resonant response behaves inversely proportional to the selected
damping coefficient. The damping coefficient is also typically nonlinear with respect to
kinematic relative velocity. Selection of an appropriate damping coefficient is especially
critical for load cases where the structure is near resonance of either a global or local
structural mode.
b. Supplier shall submit for Purchaser acceptance the details for computing an equivalent
linear modal damping coefficient that includes basic material, hydrodynamic (relative
velocity), frictional force (due to sliding components), and foundation (hysteretic and
radiation) damping contributions. The equivalent linear damping coefficient is typically a
function of platform lateral deflection, and therefore will be typically larger for extreme
storm load cases and smaller for fatigue storm load cases.
5.6
In-Service Fatigue Analysis

5.6.1
General
1. A comprehensive spectral dynamic fatigue analysis shall be performed on the jacket
in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
2. The in-service fatigue design life-safety factors for joints shall be as shown in Table 8.
If standard industry practice or experience dictates alternative life-safety factors for a
site-specific application, the Supplier shall submit written recommendations to
Purchaser for review.
Table 8:
In-Service Fatigue Design Life-Safety Factors for Joints

Minimum Fatigue
Life-Safety Factors
Description
Remarks
Secondary joints that can be inspected

and are not critical
Secondary joints at elevations from above water

down to a water depth of 200 feet (60 m)
Secondary joints that are hard to inspect

and are not critical
Secondary joints at a water depth greater than

200 feet (60 m)
Primary joints that can be inspected and

are critical
Primary joints at elevations from above water

down to a water depth of 200 feet (60 m), such as
jacket leg joints, skirt pile joints, primary X-joints
Primary joints that are critical,

inaccessible, or hard to inspect
10
Primary joints at a water depth greater than

200 feet (60 m), such as joints to jacket leg joints,
skirt pile joints, primary X-joints, or primary critical
joints that are inaccessible
3. For dynamically-sensitive structures such as deepwater fixed platforms or compliant

towers, both frequency (spectral) and time-domain fatigue analysis methods shall be
considered.
a. Supplier shall submit for Purchaser acceptance the details of required analysis to
be performed.
b. In-service fatigue analysis for dynamically sensitive structures shall also consider
the complete fatigue history of the structure during interim construction phases
prior to complete installation of the superstructure.
July 2009 (E)
20 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
4. In-service cumulative-damage ratios (CDRs) shall be developed in a manner that will

permit easy combination with the transportation CDRs (in accordance with the criteria
stipulated below) to determine final combined damage ratios.
5. The jacket designer shall provide the in-service deck CDRs to the deck designer and
to the transportation Supplier.
6. For each brace end at which fatigue life is to be determined, eight points around the
circumference shall be checked.
7. Fatigue design of caisson attachments and conductor framing shall be performed.
8. Fatigue design for the attachment of jacket appurtenances such as boat landings, barge
bumpers, and riser guards shall not be required.
5.7
Computer Model
The structural computer model used for the in-service fatigue analysis shall be identical to that
used for the storm loading with the following exceptions:
1. The conductor-guide bracing in the upper three jacket framing levels shall be modeled in full
detail to permit fatigue calculations in these areas.
2. The foundation model shall be linearized using a representative fatigue wave.
5.7.1
Stress Concentration Factors

1. Stress concentration factors (SCFs) for simple joints shall be determined using
Efthymiou equations.
a. For joints and/or connections outside the parameters of the Efthymiou equations,
applicable SCF formulations shall be presented to the Purchaser.
b. The load path shall be considered in developing the SCFs.
c. Joint geometry shall be proportioned such that the SCFs do not exceed 6.0.
d. Purchaser acceptance shall be required for joints where the calculated SCF
exceeds 6.0.
e. Joint designs with an SCF less than 10.0 shall be considered if the calculated
fatigue life is a minimum of 250 years under in-place conditions without
considering an S-N curve low-stress, high-cycle endurance limit.
f.
Supplier shall use alternate methods such as finite element modeling to determine
the SCF for joints that are not accurately represented by the simple joint
assumptions made above. An example is a brace stub-to-conductor-guide sleeve
connection.
2. A minimum SCF of 2.5 shall be used for simple TKY joints. With proper justification,
Supplier may request Purchaser acceptance of a lower value to use for specific TKY
joints.
3. A minimum SCF as determined from DNV RP-C203 Section 3.3.7, but not less than
1.00, shall be used for butt welds, such as on girth welds on jacket legs and piles. At
the kink in the main legs of the jacket, a minimum SCF of 2.5 shall be used.
4. SCFs at ring-stiffened joints, such as launch-leg joints, shall account for the presence
of the ring stiffeners.
July 2009 (E)
21 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
5. Lloyds Register recommendations presented in the Complex Joints Project Document

(CJPD) 64 shall be used.
6. A minimum SCF of 2.5 shall be used for ring-stiffened joints.
7. SCFs at jacket leg joints with grouted main piles or internally grouted sleeves may
account for the reduction in chord ovalization and consequently a reduction in hotspot stress.
a. Grouted-joint composite action shall be accounted for using Lloyds Register
procedures referenced above.
b. The procedure allows an effective chord wall thickness to be calculated equal to
the thickness, which gives a moment of inertia equal to that of the chord-pile or
chord-sleeve cross section; but it shall not exceed 1.75 times the actual chord
thickness.
c. The equivalent chord thickness, instead of the actual chord thickness, shall then be
used in calculating the joint geometric parameter gamma ().
5.7.2
Wave Slam
1. Wave slam shall be included in the determination of brace-end fatigue life in the top
framing level of the jacket.
2. A calculation procedure shall be adopted that accounts for the actual behavior of the
structural element subjected to slamming.
3. If a dynamic calculation is omitted, the fatigue damage from slamming may be
calculated according to the procedure described in DNV RP-C205 Paragraph C7.2.5.
5.7.3
S-N Curves
1. The API WJ S-N curve (formerly API X curve) shall be used in the calculation of
fatigue lives at TKY connections in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP
2A-LRFD, as applicable.
2. The DNV D curve in accordance with DNV RP-C203 shall be used at girth welds and
at conical transition joints welded from both sides. Reference DNV RP-C203 for other
weld configurations.
3. Table 9 summarizes SCF calculation method and corresponding S-N fatigue curve
versus joint type.
Table 9:
SCF and S-N Curve Selection (1 of 2)

Joint Type
Simple TKYX tubular
SCF
Efthymiou equations
2.5 SCF 6.02
July 2009 (E)
S-N Curve
API WJ curve (formerly API X
& X curve)
Inline butt splice and girth

welds, or conical transitions
welded from both sides and
from horizontal position
DNV RP-C203 equation1
DNV C1 or D curve (Ref DNV

RP-C203 Appendix A)
Inline butt splice and girth

welds, or conical transitions
welded from only one side or
from a non-horizontal position
DNV RP-C203 equation1
DNV E to F3 curve (Ref DNV

RP-C203 Appendix A)
22 of 134

Table 9:
FFS-SU-5217-A
SCF and S-N Curve Selection (2 of 2)

Joint Type
SCF
S-N Curve
Ring-stiffened tubular joint
Lloyds Register equations
API WJ curve (formerly API X'

& X curve)
Grouted tubular joint
Lloyds Register procedure

Min. SCF = 2.5

& X curve)
Jacket attachments
1.0 (SCF built into S-N curve)
DNV F1
Deck non-tubular
5.0 (for conservative

screening)3

curve)
Notes:
1. Reference API 2B for applicable fabrication tolerances.
2. Reference Section 4.5.3.1 for design of joints with a SCF > 6.0.
3. SCF for conservative screening of non-tubular joints. Non-tubular joints with CDR > 1.0 may
require more detailed determination of SCF using FEA.
4. After other preferred methods for improving fatigue lives (listed below) have been
exhausted, with Purchaser acceptance, using adjustment factors with the API WJ
curve (formerly API X) and DNV C1 curve shall be considered. The adjustment
factors applied to the API WJ curve (formerly API X curve) requires weld profiling.
The DNV C1 curve requires girth weld grinding.
5.7.4
Fatigue Design
1. The wave steepness (wave height/wave length) assumption used for developing
regular (Airy) fatigue wave pairs varies considerably depending on specific
geographic area (GOM, W. Africa, North Sea, etc.). The following shall be
considered:
a. A cutoff wave height equal to the maximum 100-year storm wave shall be used.
b. Base shear (BS) and overturning moment (OTM) transfer functions shall be
generated from the dynamic and static (BS only for static) regular wave analyses.
c. The transfer functions shall be normalized by dividing each waves maximum BS
and OTM by its wave height and reviewed to ensure that the structural response
for all wave frequencies are properly included.
d. A review of the torsional response shall also be performed.
2. Wave height/period pairs that best mimic the static and dynamic transfer functions as
well as minimize the total number of waves shall be run through a full stress analysis
for the spectral-fatigue analysis.
a. The chosen wave height/period pairs shall be run in a dynamic wave response
analysis and the loads at a minimum of twenty points along the wave cycle shall
be saved for each wave.
b. Member stress analysis for all points of the wave shall be run and the resulting
stresses at each point saved. The stresses shall include P-delta effects.
3. The preferred methods of improving fatigue life, in order of preference, at a member
end, shall be one of the following:
a. Increase chord wall thickness.
b. Increase brace end diameter.
July 2009 (E)
23 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
c. Weld profile control allowing use of adjustment factors with the API WJ curve
(formerly API X' and API X S-N curves).
d. Toe grinding or peening. (Use of this technique shall be reviewed by Purchaser on
a case-by-case basis and should be avoided unless there are no other feasible
alternatives.)
4. Alternative methods of improving fatigue life, such as adding ring stiffeners or
grouting an internal sleeve, shall not be used unless specially accepted in writing by
the Purchaser.
5.8
Transportation Strength Analysis

1. A three-dimensional computer model of the jacket and barge under tow shall be used to
analyze the stresses in the jacket and barge.
a. The jacket model shall include sufficient detail to evaluate the stress in all framing
members and joints that experience transportation motion-induced loads.
b. When a rigid barge model is not sufficientgenerally for barges in excess of 300 feet
(91 m) in lengththe barge model shall contain sufficient detail to capture the overall
flexibility characteristics of the vessel and to permit the distribution of hydrodynamic
loads to model hogging and sagging effects.
2. The jacket-barge model shall use spacers and tie-downs to simulate actual connection
conditions.
a. Vertically oriented spacer members shall be attached at all hard points on the jacket launch
runners to support and elevate the jacket to its proper height above the launch skidways.
b. Vertically oriented members shall support a vertical load only.
c. Tie-down members shall be modeled at each major horizontal elevation. The barge end of
the tie-down members shall be attached to nearby barge joints using a series of statically
determinate rigid links.
d. The tie-down braces do not typically carry gravity loads in the static condition. A
sequential structural solution shall be performed as follows:
1) The system without the tie-down braces shall be solved for the stillwater
transportation case (loadout condition).
2) Then the system with the tie-down braces is solved for dynamic load cases, including
the static wind-induced loads.
3) The still-water load case is then combined with other defined cases in the post
processor. Therefore, the presence of the tie-downs is only active under the dynamic
transportation loads.
3. The analysis of the jacket shall include all forces from the barge/cargo motion imposed during
transportation, which includes but is not limited to the masses due to the following:
a. Transport structural weight, including mill tolerance
b. Load contingency factors
c. Weight of all pre-installed rigging and shipped-loose items
July 2009 (E)
24 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
4. The jacket shall be designed to handle accelerations associated with the transportation barge
motions. The criteria listed in Table 10 per Noble Denton Group 0030/NDI, General
Guidelines for Marine Transportations, can be used for preliminary design only, before tow
route specific data are available.
Table 10:
Preliminary Transportation Design Criteria
Single amplitude of roll
20.0 degrees
Associated period
10.0 seconds
Single amplitude of pitch
12.5 degrees
Associated period
10.0 seconds
5. A minimum of eight headings shall be considered, including all combinations of beam seas,
head seas, and quartering seas.
6. For the specified significant wave height, the mean spectral period shall be varied between the
upper and lower bounds in order to find and analyze the maximum inertial forces acting on the
jacket.
7. The extreme tow inertial forces shall represent the 1-in-1000 highest values (RMS 3.72) of
the motions using a spectral sea model.
8. The lateral component of gravity due to roll caused by the design wave and wind shall be
accounted for in the jacket stress analysis.
a. Conservatively, the phase differences of the six components of inertial force may be
neglected.
b. Linear load combinations shall be formed for each wave direction to combine the extreme
global force components using all possible signs.
5.9
Transportation Fatigue Analysis

5.9.1
General
1. A comprehensive spectral-dynamic fatigue analysis shall be performed on the jacket
in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
a. Transportation fatigue analyses shall be required for jackets in which tow duration
exceeds ten days.
b. A towing velocity of 5 knots (2.6 m/s) shall be assumed to relate encounter
frequency to wave frequency. With Purchaser acceptance, a higher towing
velocity may be used for self-propelled heavy-lift cargo vessels
c. If expected seastate conditions are used for the tow duration time period, a
weather event equal to the magnitude of the design event and equivalent in length
to a storm of this type shall be included in the fatigue computations.
d. Supplier shall obtain transportation fatigue seastate design data from a Purchaseraccepted marine surveyor for the specific tow route, duration, and towing time of
the year.
2. Stresses shall be calculated at each of eight regularly spaced phase angles of each
wave.
a. A minimum of eight headings shall be considered, including all combinations of
beam seas, head seas, and quartering seas.
July 2009 (E)
25 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
b. A minimum of ten encounter frequencies shall be used to provide smooth-motion

RAO functions.
c. For each brace end at which fatigue life is to be determined, eight points around
the circumference shall be checked.
3. Transportation fatigue shall also consider fatigue damage at attachment points of
seafastening to jacket or deck structure. For jackets, consideration shall be given to the
possible attachment of seafastening tie-downs to braces and not just to jacket legs.
4. Jacket members overhanging the barge perimeter may be subjected to wave slamming
fatigue. Supplier shall submit to Purchaser the details of required analysis to be
performed.
5.9.2
Computer Model
The structural model used for transportation fatigue analysis shall be identical to that used
for the transportation strength analysis, capturing both the flexibility and hydrodynamic
pressure distribution on the barge.
5.9.3

Stress concentration factors shall be determined as described previously in this document.
5.9.4
S-N Curve
Preferred S-N curves shall be as described previously in this document.
5.9.5
Fatigue Design
Preferred methods of improving fatigue life shall be as described previously in this
document.
5.9.6
In-Service and Transportation Fatigue Combination

1. The calculation of fatigue strength shall account for fatigue damage resulting from
both transportation and in-service conditions.
2. Cumulative damage ratios (CDRs) from in-service and transportation conditions shall
be combined and shall meet the following criteria:
4 CDRT + N CDRI < 1.0
where:
CDRT = transportation CDR
CDRI = in-service CDR
N = in-service fatigue design life-safety factor from Table 8.
3. Depending on the characteristics of the structure being designed, Supplier shall
propose, for acceptance by Purchaser, which of the following additional CDR
combinations to investigate.
4. CDRs shall be combined for the interim construction, in-service, transportation, and
wave slamming damage ratio with corresponding factor of safety using the following
criteria:
July 2009 (E)
26 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
For inspectable joints:

4 CDRT + 4 CDRS + 2 CDRC + N CDRI < 1.0
For non-inspectable joints:
4 CDRT + 4 CDRS + 2 CDRC + N CDRI < 1.0
For piles below mud:
4 CDRT + 4 CDRS + 3 CDRD + 2 CDRC + N CDRI < 1.0
where:
CDRT = transportation CDR
CDRS = transportation and/or in-place slamming fatigue CDR
CDRD = pile driving fatigue CDR
CDRC = interim construction CDR
CDRI = in-service CDR (both wave and wind)
N = in-service fatigue design life-safety factor from Table 8
5.10
Launch Analysis
5.10.1 Launch Trajectory Analysis
1. Three-dimensional launch simulation analyses shall be performed to determine the
barge-jacket behavior during launching operations and the jackets stability and
bottom clearance after launch.
2. The launch-trajectory analysis shall be continued until final jacket equilibrium is
attained.
3. The time step in the launch simulation shall not exceed the following values:
a. Before rocker-arm tipping: 0.25 second.
b. After rocker-arm tipping: 0.15 second.
c. After jacket-barge separation: 0.50 second up to end of movement.
4. The velocity of the jacket in relation to the barge shall be greater than 3.0 ft/sec at the
time of jacket tipping.
a. A minimum coefficient of friction of 0.05 may be used when the launch skidway
system consists of greased timber on PTFE (Teflon) plates.
b. For other skidway systems, Supplier shall submit (with appropriate
documentation) a coefficient of friction for Purchaser acceptance.
5. The launch weight shall include mill and weld tolerance, load contingency, and all
pre-installed rigging.
6. As detail design progresses, reductions in the load contingency can be proposed by
Supplier for acceptance by Purchaser.
July 2009 (E)
27 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
7. The launch trajectory analyses shall be performed considering the variation in basic
parameters as shown in Table 11.
Table 11:
Launch Trajectory Design Criteria
Launch weight
-1% to +4%
Transverse center of gravity
1% of average jacket width at nominal elevation of

center of gravity
Longitudinal center of gravity
1% of average jacket length at nominal elevation of

center of gravity
Vertical center of gravity
1% of average jacket height
Coefficient of static friction
40% of estimated value
Coefficient of dynamic friction
Hydrodynamic coefficients
Cd = 0.65 to produce the deepest penetration of the jacket

in the water
Cd = 0.85 to produce the worst condition for jacket
velocity at the time of jacket-barge separation
Damaged condition
Multiple cases with one ballast compartment flooded in a

main leg or buoyancy tank
8. Sufficient combinations of the above basic parameters and damaged conditions shall
be analyzed to produce the worst-case launch scenario.
9. For the intact condition, the jacket shall be designed such that minimum bottom
clearance during launch shall be the greater of 10 percent of the water depth at the
launch site or 30 feet (9 m).
10. For the damaged condition, bottom clearance shall be the greater of 2 percent of the
water depth at the launch site or 10 feet (3 m).
11. All clearances shall be relative to the lowest astronomical tide (LAT).
5.10.2 Launch Stress Analysis
1. Launch stress analysis shall be performed for each of the following:
a. As each jacket launch-truss hard point passes over the rocker-arm pin before
tipping.
b. At rocker-arm tipping.
c. As each jacket launch-truss hard point passes over the rocker-arm pin after
tipping.
2. The applied loading to the jacket shall include the jacket weight, buoyancy, inertial
forces, hydrodynamic forces, and reactions from the barge.
3. The rocker-arm beam load distribution shall account for the relative stiffness of the
rocker-arm beam and launch leg and shall satisfy moment equilibrium constraints on
the rocker-arm beam.
5.10.3 Member Slam
1. Jacket members that enter the water within 10 degrees of horizontal shall be checked
for slam effects using the predicted velocities from the launch-trajectory analysis, a
Cd = 2.0, and Morisons equation.
2. Dynamic amplification shall not be considered.
July 2009 (E)
28 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
5.10.4 Hydrostatic Collapse

1. The susceptibility of tubular members to hydrostatic collapse during launch shall be
determined in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as
applicable.
2. The minimum factor of safety for the axial compression case shall be 2.0.
3. Appurtenances and secondary members shall be checked for hydrostatic collapse
during jacket installation.
5.11
Jackets Lifted from Transportation Barges

Jackets lifted from transportation barges shall be designed as follows:
1. A lift analysis shall be performed to determine stresses imposed on the jacket.
2. A three-dimensional jacket structural model shall be used.
3. Sling arrangement shall be modeled on the basis of a statically determinate lift condition.
4. Design shall include the effects of sling-length tolerances.
5. Lift points and sling configuration shall be modeled to provide suitable distribution of the load
to the crane hook.
5.12
Flotation and Upending

1. Flotation and upending analyses shall be performed to investigate trim angles, stability,
bottom clearance and, for hook-assisted upending, crane-vessel hook heights and loads.
2. The weight of all pre-installed rigging shall be included in the upending jacket weight.
3. The final flotation weight shall include all equipment installed after upending, such as
containers, hydraulic power packs, and winches that are used during jacket mating procedures.
4. The upending jacket weight shall include mill and weld tolerance, load contingency, and the
weight of all pre-installed rigging and equipment installed after upending.
5. As detail design progresses, reductions in the load contingency can be proposed by Supplier
for acceptance by Purchaser.
6. Upending and flotation analyses that consider the variance in basic parameters as shown in
Table 12 shall be performed.
Table 12:
Flotation and Upending Design Criteria
Launch weight
-1% to +4%
Transverse center of gravity
1% of average jacket width at nominal elevation of center of

gravity
Longitudinal center of gravity
1% of average jacket length at nominal elevation of center

of gravity
Vertical center of gravity
1% of average jacket height
Coefficient of friction
Damaged condition
Multiple cases with one ballast compartment flooded in a

main leg or buoyancy tank
7. No variance in the center of buoyancy shall be considered.
July 2009 (E)
29 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
8. Sufficient combinations of the above basic parameters and damage conditions shall be
analyzed to produce the worst-case flotation and upending scenario.
9. During flotation and upending, the following minimum metacentric heights shall be
maintained for intact as well as damaged conditions:
a. Transverse (GMT): 3.0 feet (0.9 m)
b. Longitudinal (GML): 0.0 feet (during rotation)
c. Longitudinal (GML): 3.0 feet (0.9 m) (vertical position)
10. Only ballasting shall be permitted during the uprighting phase of the upending procedure.
a. Dewatering of flooded compartments shall only be used when correcting jacket attitude
for damaged conditions.
b. Dewatering shall take place away from the installation site but within the anchor pattern of
the installation vessel.
c. The dewatering process can be carried out by injecting compressed air or nitrogen into one
or more compartments depending on the location and type of damage to the jacket.
11. For a hook-assisted upending, the jacket shall have a minimum undamaged reserve buoyancy
of 12 percent of jacket weight.
12. For damaged conditions, the minimum reserve buoyancy shall be 5 percent of jacket weight.
13. During upending, a minimum bottom clearance of 10 feet (3 m) shall be maintained above the
highest seafloor obstruction throughout the flotation and upending procedures.
14. After the jacket is in the vertical position, the minimum clearance above seafloor obstructions,
such as wellheads or docking piles, may be reduced to 5 feet (1.5 m).
15. All clearances shall be relative to LAT.
16. The jacket shall be designed such that, in the post-launch condition, the jacket shall float in a
stable equilibrium position within 10 degrees of vertical for the worst-case intact and worstcase damaged conditions.
17. The top of jacket shall be accessible to personnel by access ladders from a Zodiac
(inflatable) boat.
18. For self-upending jackets, based on selected pre-flooded compartments near the bottom of
structure, the structure shall float approximately vertical with sufficient stability (GM > 3 feet
[0.9 m]). The reserve buoyancy at its free standing flotation condition shall satisfy the
following criteria:
a. The minimum reserve buoyancy at vertical flotation position shall be at least 5 percent for
an intact condition.
b. The structure should float near vertical position (<5 degrees to vertical) for intact
condition after upending.
c. The structure shall be able to continue the upending and lowering operation with one
damaged compartment.
d. With one compartment damaged, the structure shall be stable without the use of cranes.
July 2009 (E)
30 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
e. In case of accidental flooding of any two compartments, the structure shall have a
minimum of 1.0 percent excess buoyancy.
1) The excess buoyancy shall be calculated using a jacket design weight that includes
defensible weight contingencies for both modeled and unmodeled jacket components.
2) Stability as measured by the GM must be >3 feet (0.9 m) to ensure that the jacket shall
remain nearly upright (< 5 degrees to vertical) if the jacket becomes fully submerged.
3) Member hydrostatic collapse shall be checked for a scenario with the jacket resting
upright on the mudline.
f.
5.13
After upend, the maximum out-of-vertical angle of the structure considering a surface
current of 0.5 knot (0.26 m/s) while secured with towing line(s) should be less than
10 degrees for any of the above damaged conditions.
Jackets Installed Over Templates

Jackets installed over templates shall be designed as follows:
1. A docking sequence shall be developed.
2. A jacket-template docking analysis shall be performed to determine the configuration, size,
and length of docking piles and/or pins.
3. The docking analysis shall conform to current industry practice and shall be developed with
the concurrence of the installation contractor.
4. The analysis shall account for the mass of the jacket during installation, fabrication tolerances,
current forces, hook load, momentum, and other dynamic effects.
5. Maximum environmental criteria to perform the docking operation shall be determined.
6. The docking system shall be designed to prevent any docking forces from being transmitted
through the template to existing wells.
5.14
Loadout Analysis
1. The jacket shall be designed for stresses occurring during loadout.
2. The analysis shall fully consider the method of loadout, behavior of the foundation, and
characteristics of the barge.
3. The following critical stages during a skidded loadout shall be analyzed:
a. Maximum cantilever condition prior to support by the transport vessel.
b. Maximum node reactions occurring on the fabricators skidway.
c. Maximum node reactions occurring on the transportation vessel.
d. Maximum cantilever condition after lift-off from the fabricators skidways.
e. Final tow position.
4. A minimum of four jacket support conditions shall be investigated during loadout.
5. The maximum allowable deflection of the barge supporting the jacket shall be determined for
each stage of loadout.
6. Compression-only elements shall be included at the loadout support points.
7. The launch barge rocker arm and rocker arm restraints shall be explicitly modeled for the
appropriate loadout conditions.
July 2009 (E)
31 of 134

5.15
FFS-SU-5217-A
On-Bottom Stability Analysis

1. An on-bottom stability analysis shall be performed to assure the pre-piled integrity and
stability of the jacket after it is set on the sea floor.
a. The mudmats shall be designed globally to avoid overstressing the soils and causing jacket
instability due to soil failure.
b. Design of the mudmats and associated framing shall be based on the forces acting on them
due to the jacket on bottom weight, pile string weights, and specified environmental load
conditions.
c. Calculated bearing pressure under the mudmats shall have a minimum safety factor of 2.0.
In most cases, the soil report has already included the safety factor, in which case the ratio
of calculated bearing pressure to allowable bearing pressure should be < 1.0.
2. The load conditions to be considered in the on-bottom stability analysis shall include still
water and the one-year storm wave with the following conditions:
a. Jacket on bottom with all legs flooded to MLW.
b. Jacket on bottom with all legs flooded to MLW with the weight of various combinations of
pile strings supported by the jacket, as appropriate.
3. The weight and locations of the pile strings shall be considered in determining the pile
installation sequence.
4. The sliding resistance of the jacket shall be calculated for the installation conditions.
5. The mudmat effective bearing capacity shall be appropriately modified per industry best
practices to include the applied effective moment arm eccentricity on the mudmat system.
5.16
Barge Stability
1. See the United States Coast Guard (USCG) document, Requirements for Mobile Offshore
Drilling Units.
2. In addition to meeting the USCG requirements, the following stability requirements shall be
met:
a. The range of static stability of barge and cargo about an axis shall exceed 40 degrees.
b. The angle of downflooding (the point where non-watertight opening immersion starts)
shall be greater than 20 degrees.
c. The wind shall correspond to the 10-year monthly extreme one-minute wind velocity at a
reference height of 32.8 ft. (10m) above sea level for the specific season of the tow and the
tow route planned.
d. For unrestricted services intact dynamic stability analysis, factors of safety against
overturning by a 100-knot (50 m/s) wind shall not be less than 1.4, calculated as the ratio
of areas under the righting and overturning moment curves up to the second intercept of
those curves or the angle of downflooding, if less.
e. For unrestricted services damaged dynamic stability analysis, factors of safety against
overturning by a 50-knot (25 m/s) wind shall not be less than 1.4, calculated as the ratio of
areas under the righting and overturning moment curves up to the second intercept of
those curves or the angle of downflooding, if less.
July 2009 (E)
32 of 134

f.
FFS-SU-5217-A
For restricted services, different wind speeds may be used for barge stability
determination, subject to Purchasers acceptance.
1) The wind shall correspond to the 1-in-1000 tow for the specific route planned.
2) The analysis shall take into consideration the time of the year that the tow will take
place.
5.17
Seismic Analysis
In areas where it is appropriate to perform a seismic analysis, detailed methods and procedures for
performing the analysis shall be submitted to Purchaser for acceptance. API RP 2A-WSD or API
RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable, shall be followed.
5.18
Member Design
1. Member stresses shall be checked at the ends of members and throughout their lengths in
accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
2. Brace-member end forces may be calculated at the face of the chord instead of at the centerline
of the chord, when appropriate.
3. In addition, all structural framing shall meet the following guidelines:
a. The maximum member slenderness ratios (kl/r) shall be as shown in Table 13.
Table 13:
Maximum Member Slenderness Ratios

Maximum Slenderness Ratio
Members
Compression
Tension
Primary braces (essential to overall integrity of the jacket)
100
200
Secondary braces (not essential to overall integrity of the

jacket, i.e., conductor guide framing and walkway supports)
120
240
For tension members with slenderness ratio over 120, caution must be exercised to ensure
transportation and installation loads have been analyzed, vibration issues have been addressed,
and load reversals into compression, if applicable, have been analyzed.
b. The coefficient (k) shall be chosen for each member in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD
and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
c. In special cases where the rigidity at member ends is difficult to classify, the buckling load
in a member or substructure may be obtained by computer calculation and the member
slenderness ratio deduced.
d. For braces and beams, the member length may be taken equal to the distance between the
faces of the chords, or the actual connections.
e. Diameter-to-thickness (D/t) ratios for rolled tubular members shall fall within the ranges
in Table 14.
Table 14:
Diameter-to-Thickness Ratios
Members
D/t Ratio
Maximum
Minimum
Braces (20 inch [510 mm] diameter or less)
60
30
Braces (22 inch [560 mm] diameter or larger)
60
20
Joint cans
60
20*
* Use of joint-can D/t ratios of less than 20 must be accepted in writing by Purchaser.
July 2009 (E)
33 of 134

f.
FFS-SU-5217-A
Pile diameter-to-thickness ratios shall not exceed 50.
g. Tubular member minimum wall thicknesses shall be as follows:

1) For primary members: 0.375 inches (9.5 mm)
2) For secondary members: 0.25 inches (6 mm)
5.19
Tubular Joint Design

1. Tubular joints shall be designed in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or
2. In addition, all tubular joints shall meet the following guidelines:
a. Wherever possible, nominally concentric jacket leg and brace joints shall be detailed with
working points offset in either direction to obtain a minimum clearance of 3 inches
(75 mm) between adjacent braces, minimizing joint-can length. For small-to-moderate
size braces, and with the acceptance of Purchaser, this clearance may be reduced to
2 inches (50 mm).
b. When detailing brace joint cans, if simple joint detailing is not practical, balloon joints
shall be used with conical transitions back to nominal brace diameter to provide a
minimum of 3 inches (75 mm) clear, whenever possible. For small-to-moderate size
braces, and with the acceptance of Purchaser, this clearance may be reduced to 2 inches
(50 mm).
c. Where overlapping joints cannot practically be avoided, a minimum overlap equal to one
quarter of the overlapping member diameter shall be detailed.
d. If an increased wall thickness in the chord at a joint is required, the thickened chord shall
extend past the outside edge of the bracing a minimum of one quarter of the chord
diameter or 12 inches (300 mm), whichever is greater.
e. The length required for tapering the thickened chord down to the nominal member
thickness shall not be included in the previously stated can length.
f.
Joint cans that occur at the end of a chord member as a stub end shall extend past the edge
of the bracing a minimum of one quarter of the chord diameter or 12 inches (300 mm),
whichever is greater.
g. The total length of all joint cans shall be detailed in even increments of 2 feet 6 inches
(750 mm), unless directed otherwise by Purchaser at the request of the fabrication
contractor.
h. If an increased wall thickness or special steel is required for a brace end, the thickened can
or special material shall extend a minimum of one brace diameter or 24 inches (600 mm),
i.
In the case of a thickened brace end, the length required for tapering the thickened brace
end down to the nominal brace thickness shall not be included in the previously stated
length.
j.
A 1-on-3 maximum taper shall be detailed for reducing a joint can or brace end thickness
to the nominal member thickness. A 1-on-4 taper shall be used for thinner wall scenarios,
if possible.
July 2009 (E)
34 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
k. Grouted joint composite action may be accounted for using Lloyds Register procedures.
1) The procedure allows an effective chord-wall thickness to be calculated equal to the
thickness that gives a moment of inertia equal to that of the chord-pile or chord-sleeve
cross section, but not to exceed 1.75 times the actual chord thickness.
2) The equivalent chord thickness shall then be used, instead of the actual chord
thickness, in calculation of the joint geometric parameter gamma () to calculate the
allowable punching shear.
3) The actual chord thickness shall be used to calculate the acting punching shear.
l.
Launch-leg joints and other ring-stiffened joints shall be analyzed using appropriate
closed-ring solutions.
1) The stress calculated in the stiffener outer fiber may be allowed to approach the
material yield stress during transportation and launch.
2) For all other cases, this stress shall be limited to basic allowable stresses with an
appropriate stress ratio increase.
3) Similarly, the stress in the stiffened chord shall be limited to the basic allowable stress
with the appropriate stress-increase ratio.
4) The effective length of the stiffened chord wall used to compute the effective section
for ring-stress analysis calculations shall not exceed 1.25 times the chord diameter on
either side of the brace centerline.
m. Joint flexibility may be modeled using appropriate empirical formulae or results from
local joint analysis. Supplier shall submit the procedure for acceptance to Purchaser.
n. The API requirement stating tubular-joint connections shall be designed for a minimum of
50 percent of the effective strength of the member shall apply to primary members only
(i.e., excluding conductor-guide framing, caisson, and riser supports and other
appurtenance connections).
5.20
Vortex Shedding
1. Vibration problems associated with vortex shedding during fabrication, pre-service, and inservice conditions shall be considered in platform design.
a. Dynamic responses and the associated forces shall be checked for grout lines, flood lines,
casings, J-tubes, I-tubes, conductors, and slender structural members.
b. The maximum limiting damping value shall not exceed 1 percent for members in water.
2. Jacket members shall be checked for the effects of current-induced VIV using DNV RP-C205
and DNV RP-F105.
a. Computed in-line and cross-flow hydrodynamic damping is a function of member modal
response.
b. For members in water, the maximum limiting total damping used to determine the member
allowable span length shall not exceed 1 percent.
3. Member susceptibility to vortex shedding for submerged members shall be assessed using an
envelope of the 10-year RP current and wave velocities versus depth below waterline for the
various metocean cases defined in the project basis of design. The following VIV load cases at
a minimum shall be considered:
a. Load case 1: 10-yr RP current + 10-yr RP extreme wave
July 2009 (E)
35 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
b. Load case 2: 10-yr RP current + associated wave

c. Load case 3: 10-yr RP current
4. Load case 1 or 2 shall typically control at larger depths below the waterline.
5. Load case 3 shall typically control near the waterline.
a. This design procedure is intended to provide a methodology to substantially avoid the
onset of IL VIV and the resulting member fatigue damage.
b. Alternatively, Supplier can propose to Purchaser a more detailed VIV design methodology
that explicitly uses an allowable member fatigue damage approach.
6. Member susceptibility to wind-induced vortex shedding shall be assessed in accordance with
the following:
a. The one-minute sustained wind speed of the 5-year storm shall be used for the site under
consideration.
b. The maximum limiting damping value shall not exceed 0.2 percent for members in air.
7. Members shall be designed to withstand vortex-induced loading.
8. As required, vortex suppression devices may be used.
a. Temporary suppression devices shall be designed for easy removal prior to platform
installation.
b. Permanent suppression devices shall be designed, fabricated, and inspected to meet longterm service requirements.
5.21
Wave Slam
1. All members, including walkways, stairways, conductor guides, riser clamps, and pump
casings in the wave zone shall be designed for wave slam forces.
2. Bending stresses due to both horizontal and vertical slam forces in combination with other
global stresses shall be investigated.
3. Current velocity components shall not be included in the wave kinematics when calculating
the slam loading.
4. For X-braces, members shall be assumed simply supported out of the plane of the framing.
5. Member lengths may be reduced to the face of the jacket leg.
6. Wave slam shall be calculated using Morisons equation with a drag coefficient of 3.0.
7. To account for dynamic amplification, member mid-span moments shall be amplified by 2.0
and end moments amplified by 1.5.
5.22
Hydrostatic Design
1. Design for hydrostatic loadings shall be in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP
2A-LRFD, as applicable.
2. For members with D/t ratios greater than 120 or a yield stress greater than 60 ksi (415 MPa),
hydrostatic design shall be completed in accordance with API Bulletin 2U.
3. For the design of large-diameter members, out-of-roundness shall be considered in accordance
with API Spec 2B.
July 2009 (E)
36 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
4. The actual member length between the faces of the chords or between ring stiffeners may be
used.
5. For the installation design conditions, all members shall be designed for the combined effects
of tension or compression, plus bending, and hydrostatic pressure.
a. For a given horizontal elevation, the most critical hydrostatic design pressure shall be used
for all members at that elevation.
b. The hydrostatic pressure, as determined by the launch analysis, shall be increased by
25 percent for use in member design, but in no case shall be less than 250 feet (75 m)
design depth for all jacket sections
c. Jacket compartments shall be considered buoyant for the local member checks. Ballast
and trim compartments shall be considered buoyant to account for failure of the flooding
system.
d. Hydrostatic pressure checks shall be performed on all appurtenances.
e. The member unity checks shall include the axial capped end force in the buckling
equation.
6. Bulkheads
a. Spherical and Ellipsoidal bulkheads shall be designed per the ASME VIII, Div 1, Pressure
Vessel Code, for the maximum design pressures.
b. Design pressure shall be determined from the intact and damaged installation and in-place
conditions, and shall be assumed to be applied on the most critical side of the bulkhead.
1) Stresses in both the bulkhead and the cylindrical member at the bulkhead-to-leg
intersection shall be checked and kept below allowable limits.
2) SCFs shall be determined at bulkhead connections for use in fatigue checks.
5.23
Grouted Connections
1. Grouted connections, most commonly shear connections between piles and structures, shall be
designed in accordance with API RP2A.
2. Supplier shall consider using the U.K. Department of Energy (DOE) Offshore Installations
Guidance on Design and Construction for calculation of allowable bond stress for complex
grouted connections as referenced in API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD.
3. Recommendations presented in OTC paper No. 004890 on the allowable range of parameters
that should be used with the DOE formulas shall be incorporated into the grouted connection
design.
5.24
Vessel Impact
1. The jacket shall be designed to withstand impacts by vesselsboth planned berthings by
supply and crew boats at the boat landings and barge bumpers, and uncontrolled impacts to
jacket members and riser guard systemsas specified in Appendix B.
2. The Supplier shall utilize the generic design guidance presented within Appendix B together
with other project-specific, basis-of-design information to develop relevant vessel-impact load
cases and analysis procedures. These shall be submitted in writing to Purchaser for
acceptance.
July 2009 (E)
37 of 134

6.0
DECK DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
6.1
Computer Model
FFS-SU-5217-A
1. Decks and modules shall be sized, modeled, and analyzed in sufficient detail to ensure
structural adequacy for all possible loading conditions experienced during their lives
pre-service and in-service.
2. The deck shall be analyzed using a three-dimensional space-frame computer model of
sufficient detail to accurately represent the stiffness and load distribution within the deck in
order to design individual members.
a. Deck and module computer models shall include primary truss and framing members and
major deck beams.
b. Deck plate may be modeled to incorporate in-plane shear restraint or to provide lateral
bracing to beam flanges.
c. If not explicitly modeled, plate stiffness shall be simulated by X-bracing.
d. Grating shall not be considered to provide in-plane shear restraint or lateral beam-flange
restraint.
e. The flare boom shall be included in the in-place model.
f.
Conductor, pull tube, bridge supports, and sump supporting members shall be modeled
explicitly.
3. For in-service loadings, if at all possible, decks shall be analyzed with a full jacket model.
a. If, however, decks and/or modules are modeled and analyzed separately from the jacket,
total structural system performance shall be accounted for, including the effect of jacket
stiffness on support conditions.
b. As a minimum, the first bay of the jacket shall be included in the structural model.
6.2
Environmental Loading
6.2.1
Wave and Current Forces

1. The global effect of wave and current forces on the jacket shall be accounted for in the
design of the deck.
2. To ensure these effects are included in the deck design, if at all possible, the jacket
shall be included with the deck in the computer model and the platform shall be
analyzed as an integral structure.
6.2.2
Wind Forces
1. For the global analysis of the deck, the wind forces shall be assumed to act omnidirectionally, simultaneously and co-linearly with the wave and current forces on the
jacket.
a. The one-minute sustained wind speed associated with the wave condition shall be
used for the superstructure analysis.
b. The global wind load on the deck may be determined by taking the projected area
of the deck with a shape factor of 1.0.
c. Wind loads on flare boom shall be determined rigorously; i.e., a projected area
approximation shall not be used.
July 2009 (E)
38 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
2. For the local design of deck appurtenances, such as communication towers, flare
booms, flare boom connections, firewalls, splash walls, equipment supports, and
supporting deck beams, the wind-only, three-second-gust wind speed shall be used.
6.3
In-Service Analysis
1. The deck beams, major support beams, and deck trusses shall be analyzed and designed for
loads including, but not limited to, dead loads, drilling rig loads, crane loads, equipment loads,
and production live loads.
2. The platform shall be analyzed for a minimum of eight wave and wind attack directions at
45 degree intervals around the platform.
3. Wave directionality (different wave heights from different directions) shall be considered in
the analysis.
4. The deck shall be designed with the drilling rig positioned to produce the maximum possible
forces in the skid beams and supporting trusses.
5. Loads shall be varied to include conditions that both maximize and minimize foundation
loading.
6. Crane loads shall be included in the operating load cases.
a. For each operating case, the crane shall be positioned at multiple headings with full
capacity crane loads.
b. For each operating case, eight crane-load cases based on eight headings (0, 45, 90, 135,
180, 225, 270, 315 degrees) are recommended.
c. Use of a fewer number of load cases in final design shall be acceptable if it can be shown
during preliminary design that only a few load cases control the design.
7. Deck loads shall include area-load and equipment-load cases when the data are available.
a. Deck loads shall also include a hydrotest case with equipment filled with water for
hydrotest condition.
b. In running the hydrotest case, consideration shall be given to the fact that all equipment
will not be filled with water at the same time.
6.4
Transportation Strength Analysis

1. A three-dimensional computer model of the deck and barge shall be used to analyze the
stresses in the deck and barge.
a. The deck model shall include sufficient detail to evaluate the stress in all members and
joints that will experience significant transportation-motion-induced loads.
b. When a rigid barge model is not sufficientgenerally for barges in excess of 300 feet
(91 m) in lengththe barge model shall contain sufficient detail to capture the overall
flexibility characteristics of the vessel and to permit the distribution of hydrodynamic
loads to model hogging and sagging effects.
2. The deck-barge computer model shall use spacers and tie-downs to simulate actual connection
conditions.
a. Vertically oriented spacer members shall be attached at all deck leg locations to support
and elevate the deck to its proper height above the barge deck.
b. These members shall support vertical load only.
July 2009 (E)
39 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
c. Tie-downs shall be modeled at each deck leg.

d. The barge ends of the tie-downs shall be attached to nearby barge joints using a series of
statically determinate rigid links.
3. The analysis of the deck, equipment, access platform, and secondary deck structures shall
include the forces imposed from the barge/cargo motion during transportation.
4. The transport structural weight shall include weight contingencies, operators reserve, if
applicable (as defined in the project weight control report), and the weight of all pre-installed
rigging and shipped-loose items.
a. Weight contingencies shall account for different levels of uncertainties at different design
stages.
b. Operators reserve shall account for potential changes, as requested by the Purchaser.
5. A minimum of eight headings shall be considered, including all combinations of beam seas,
head seas, and quartering seas.
a. For the specified significant-wave height, the mean-spectral period shall be varied
between the upper and lower bounds in order to maximize inertial forces acting on the
deck.
b. The extreme-tow inertial forces shall represent the 1-in-1000 highest values (RMS 3.72)
of the motions using a spectral sea model.
6. The lateral component of gravity due to roll caused by the design wave and wind shall be
accounted for in the deck stress analysis.
a. Conservatively, the phase differences of the six components of inertial force may be
neglected.
b. Linear load combinations shall be formed for each wave direction to combine the extreme
global force components using all possible signs.
7. A sequential structural solution shall be performed.
a. The system without the tie-down braces shall be solved for the still-water transportation
case (loadout condition).
b. The system with the tie-down braces shall be solved for dynamic load cases, including the
static wind-induced loads.
c. The still-water load case shall then combined with other defined cases in the post
processor.
d. Therefore, the presence of the tie-downs shall only be active under the dynamic
transportation loads.
6.5
Transportation Fatigue Analysis

6.5.1
General
1. A comprehensive spectral-dynamic fatigue analysis shall be performed on the deck in
accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
2. Transportation fatigue analyses shall be required for decks where tow duration
exceeds ten days.
3. A towing velocity of 5 knots (2.6 m/s) shall be assumed to relate encounter frequency
to wave frequency.
July 2009 (E)
40 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
4. If appropriate and accepted by Purchaser, a higher towing speed may be used for selfpropelled tows with a heavy-lift vessel.
5. If expected seastate conditions are used for the tow duration time period, a weather
event equal to the magnitude of the design event and equivalent in length to a storm of
this type shall be included in the fatigue computations.
6. Stresses shall be calculated at each of eight regularly spaced phase angles of each
wave.
7. A minimum of eight headings shall be considered, including all combinations of beam
seas, head seas, and quartering seas.
8. A minimum of ten encounter frequencies shall be used to provide smooth-motion
RAO functions.
9. For each location at which fatigue life is to be determined, eight points around the
circumference shall be checked.
6.5.2
Computer Model
The structural model used for transportation fatigue analysis shall be identical to that used
for the transportation strength analysis, capturing both the flexibility and hydrodynamic
pressure distribution on the barge.
6.5.3

Stress concentration factors shall be determined as described previously in this document.
6.5.4
S-N Curves
Preferred S-N curves shall be as described previously in this document.
6.5.5
Fatigue Design
Preferred methods of improving fatigue life shall be as described previously in this
document.
6.5.6
In-Service and Transportation Fatigue Combination

1. Prediction of fatigue life of the deck structure shall include damages resulting from
the transportation as well as in-service stress condition.
2. For appropriate safety factor and instructions on combining the damages due to
transportation and in-place conditions, see Section 5.9.6.
6.6
Lifting Analysis
6.6.1
General
1. Three-dimensional space-frame lift analyses shall be performed for all structures to be
lifted in accordance with API RP 2A-WSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
a. The lift weight shall include weight contingencies, operators reserve (as defined
in the weight control report generated in each project), and the weight of all preinstalled rigging and shipped-loose items.
b. The center of gravity shall be calculated without contingencies.
July 2009 (E)
41 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
c. The analyses shall be verified at the completion of fabrication after the structures
have been weighed or the final weight report issued.
d. For general guidance and computer modeling for the lift analyses, see Section 5.11.
2. The lifting-eye design shall include sufficient reserve strength to allow for future
weight growth, load distribution changes, and final selection of rigging.
a. Lifting eyes shall be configured to permit the final angle or orientation to be
established as late in fabrication as possible.
b. Lifting eyes for major deck and module lifts shall be located so that they will be
permanent, not requiring removal.
6.6.2
Single-Crane Lifts
1. The installation contractors lift analysis procedures shall be used in the lift analyses.
2. In the absence of the installation contractors procedures, the following procedure
shall be followed for a single-crane, four-point lift.
3. The structure shall be analyzed for two conditions:
a. A 75 percent to 25 percent load distribution shall be assumed between diagonally
opposite pairs of slings.
1) Sling reactions shall be increased by 35 percent for design of the lifting eye
and connecting members.
2) This condition does not apply where use of a spreader bar prevents a load
distribution of 75 percent to 25 percent.
b. The following may be used in lieu of 3a above, with Purchaser acceptance:
1) The structure and rigging shall be analyzed with the center of lift points
within a 3 ft radius envelop of the calculated CG of the lifted structure.
2) The sling lengths must be certified to industry standards such as IMCA M 179,
ISO 7531, and ISO 2408.
c. The sling reactions shall be calculated using a rigid-body lift analysis, which
properly accounts for the distribution of weight in the structure and for any
hanging/skew angles.
1) Sling reactions shall be multiplied by a factor of 2.0 for design of lifting eyes
and connecting members.
2) All other members shall be designed using a load factor of 1.35.
3) Side loads on the padeyes and padears shall be calculated, taking into account
the deck out of level, but in no case shall the side load be less than 5 percent of
the static sling load.
4. To prevent damage, deflections during lift shall be limited for structures with deflectionsensitive appurtenances (such as quarters building) or coatings (such as fireproofing).
6.6.3
Dual-Crane Lifts
1. If the installation contractor has been selected at the time of design, the installation
contractors lift analysis procedures shall be used in the lift analyses.
2. In the absence of the installation contractors procedures, the Purchaser and the
Supplier shall agree upon a dual-crane lift procedure for use in the design.
July 2009 (E)
42 of 134

6.7
FFS-SU-5217-A
Loadout Analysis
1. The deck shall be designed for stresses occurring during loadout.
2. The analysis shall fully consider the method of loadout, behavior of the foundation, and
characteristics of the barge.
3. A minimum of the four most critical deck support conditions shall be investigated during
loadout. The maximum allowable deflection of the barge supporting the deck shall be
determined for each stage of loadout.
4. Unless a specific loadout plan dictates otherwise, loadout analysis shall include the following:
a. All columns supported.
b. Three-point support; loss of support one column at a time.
c. Maximum upward/downward displacement of unsupported columns of 2 inches (50mm).
d. A horizontal jacking force on the two lead columns resisted by friction at all four columns.
6.8
Barge Stability
Barge stability criteria for the deck transportation shall be the same as stated for the jacket
transportation above.
6.9
Local Vibrations
1. Local vibration response to harmonic forces caused by reciprocating or rotating machinery
shall be determined.
2. Elements in the superstructure that support mechanical equipment shall be designed so that
their natural frequency of vibration is either less than 70 percent or greater than 140 percent of
any equipment operating or transient frequencies.
3. Detailed methods and procedures for performing this analysis shall be submitted to Purchaser
for acceptance.
4. In developing the equipment and structural layout, an attempt shall be made to locate
reciprocating compressors and pumps where deck beams and girders can be rigidly supported.
a. Cantilever or mid-span of unsupported main or secondary girders shall be avoided.
b. Preferred location for placing the equipment shall be on the top of the deck columns, top
of the deck trusses, and near deck trusses.
c. Low-rpm rotating equipment shall always be supported by stiff beams.
5. Specific to turbo-machinery skids, the maximum combined bending and twisting deflection
shall not exceed those specified in Table 15.
Table 15:
6.10
Deflection Criteria for Beams Supporting Vibrating Machinery
Sagging
0.13 inches (3.3 mm) over 28-foot (8.5 m) span (approximately L/2500)
Hogging
+0.13 inches (+3.3 mm) over 28-foot span (8.5 m) (approximately L/2500)
Maximum twist
Not to exceed 0.006 degrees per foot
Member Design
Member design criteria for the deck shall be the same as stated for the jacket above.
July 2009 (E)
43 of 134

6.11
FFS-SU-5217-A
Tubular Joint Design

Tubular joint design criteria for the deck shall be the same as stated for the jacket above.
6.12
Vortex Shedding
1. Member susceptibility to wind-induced vortex shedding shall be assessed in accordance with
Appendix A and the one-minute sustained wind speed of the 5-year storm for the site under
consideration.
2. The maximum limiting damping value shall not exceed 0.2 percent for members in air.
3. Members shall be designed to withstand vortex-induced loading.
4. As required, vortex suppression devices may be used.
5. Temporary suppression devices shall be designed for easy removal prior to platform
installation.
6. Permanent suppression devices shall be designed, fabricated, and inspected to meet long-term
service requirements.
6.13
Primary Beam and Plate Girder Design

6.13.1 Deflections
1. Vertical deflections of primary beams and plate girders shall be limited to criteria
based on equipment operating requirements specified by equipment suppliers or the
specifications in Table 16, whichever is more stringent.
Table 16:
Deflection Criteria for Beams and Plate Girders

Support Condition
Both Ends Supported
Allowable Deflection
Live Load
Dead Load + Live Load
L/360
L/240
Cantilever
L/240
L/180
Beams Supporting Rotating Equipment
L/480
L/480
Note: L is the member length from face to face of the beam.
2. Lateral deflections of primary beams, plate girders, and secondary beams shall be
limited to criteria based on equipment and piping operating requirements, supplied by
Purchaser.
3. If lateral deflection criteria are not provided by Purchaser, the recommendations from
the applicable equipment and piping vendors shall be used.
6.13.2 Plate Girder Guidelines
Plate girders shall be designed in accordance with AISCs Manual of Steel Construction
and shall incorporate the following guidelines:
1. The shear coefficient (Cv) shall be as specified by AISC. As design conditions allow,
Cv shall be less than or equal to 0.80.
2. The top and bottom flanges at a given section shall be of equal area and of the same
grade of steel.
3. Longitudinal web stiffeners shall not be used.
July 2009 (E)
44 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
4. The yield strength of the flange steel shall be equal to or greater than the yield strength
of the web steel.
5. The bearing and intermediate stiffeners shall use the same yield strength steel as the web.
6. All plate girders shall be compact sections as defined by AISC.
7. An increased plate girder web thickness may be required within the intersection zones
of connecting truss members.
a. Unless agreed otherwise by Purchaser, computer modeling of plate girder truss
connections shall use multiple-joint node connection locations appropriately
located along the plate girder length to accurately capture the plate girder shear
transfer with intersecting truss members.
b. Using a single-joint node model at the plate girder truss connection location may
result in unconservative plate girder shear load distribution and inadequate plate
girder web thickness design.
6.14
Dropped Objects
1. Critical areas of the deck shall be designed to withstand impacts by objects that are
accidentally dropped in the course of expected platform operations. The design shall be in
accordance with Appendix C.
2. The Supplier shall utilize the generic design guidance presented in Appendix C with other
project-specific, basis-of-design information to develop relevant dropped object load cases
and analysis procedures. These shall be submitted in writing to Purchase for acceptance.
6.15
Fire and Blast

1. As appropriatedepending on the types of fluids handled on the platform and arrangement of
equipmentcritical areas of the deck shall be designed to withstand fires and explosions in
accordance with Appendix D.
2. The Supplier shall utilize the generic design guidance presented within Appendix D together
with other project-specific, basis-of-design information to develop relevant fire and blast load
cases and analysis procedures. These shall be submitted in writing to Purchaser.
7.0
APPURTENANCE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
7.1
Boat Landings
1. Boat landings, associated connections and local framing shall be designed for boat impact
loads (as specified in Appendix B), environmental loads, uniform live loads, and dead loads.
2. Boat landings shall be two levels.
a. Mooring bollards shall be provided on the jacket structure near each end of the boat
landing for supply vessel mooring.
b. Removable handrails shall be provided on the interior side of the boat landing.
c. A removable ladder shall be provided on each side of the boat landing to facilitate
personnel movement from the water to the boat landing walkway.
d. The bottom rung of the ladder shall be level with the bottom of the boat landing.
e. A stairway shall be provided between the boat landing and the jacket walkway.
f.
July 2009 (E)
Swing ropes shall be provided to facilitate personnel movement between vessels and the boat
landing.
45 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
3. All vertical posts along the berthing face shall be protected from abrasion by vessel contact by
replaceable rub strips.
4. Center-to-center spacing between the vertical posts shall not exceed 3 feet (0.9 m).
5. For field-installed boat landings, the boat landing, and its interface with other platform
appurtenances and equipment, shall be designed to allow for +/- 4 feet (1.2 m) of vertical
adjustment in the field at the time of platform installation.
6. The +/- 4 feet (1.2m) vertical adjustment tolerance is to allow for water depth and platform onbottom setting uncertainties.
7. If requested by Purchaser, boat landings shall be designed to accommodate small surfer
vessels used primarily for personnel transfer. (This is a typical requirement in areas such as
West Africa.)
7.2
Barge Bumpers
1. Barge bumpers, associated connections, and local framing shall be designed for boat impact
loads as specified in Appendix B.
2. Barge bumpers shall be removable and mounted on shock cells.
3. The barge bumper total vertical design height or explicit provision for field adjustment shall be
consistent with the water depth and platform on-bottom setting uncertainties specified for boat
landings in Section 7.1.
7.3
Riser Guards
1. Riser guards, associated connections, and local framing shall be designed for boat impact
loads as specified in Appendix B.
2. Where there is a plan for future riser installation, riser guards shall be designed to swing from
one end to allow for installation of the future risers.
3. Large riser guards that cannot be effectively designed to swing from one end shall be designed
with stabbing guides so that they can be removed and reinstalled or replaced if necessary.
7.4
Riser Clamps
1. Riser clamps shall be designed to withstand all environmental and operating loadings
including pipeline thermal expansion and surge.
2. Riser clamps shall include a neoprene liner.
3. In the design of riser clamps, Supplier shall consider that clamps rigidly attached to risers are
believed to exhibit a shorter fatigue life than clamps designed with larger annular gaps, which
are somewhat more flexible.
7.5
Sumps and Pump Casings

1. Sumps and pump casings and their supports shall be designed to withstand all environmental
and operating loadings.
2. The bottom elevation shall be determined to satisfy process design.
3. Jacket supports for skim pile sumps shall be designed to allow vertical adjustment after
jacket installation to match the jacket installation vertical tolerances (for example, the skim
pile elevation relative to sea level must be adjustable to maintain full operability of the skim
pile).
July 2009 (E)
46 of 134

7.6
FFS-SU-5217-A
Walkways, Stairways, and Landings

1. Walkways, stairways, and landings shall be designed for a uniform live load of 100 psf
(500 kg/m2) or a 1000-pound (450 kg) moving, concentrated load, whichever is more severe.
2. Walkways in high-traffic areas and primary means of egress shall have a minimum clear width
of four feet (1.2 m).
a. All walkways, stairways, and landings shall have a minimum clear width of 3 feet (0.9 m).
b. Platform stairway and associated landings and egress paths shall be designed to
accommodate two men carrying an injured person on a stretcher from the boat landing to
the helideck.
c. All walkways, stairways, and landings shall meet SID-SU-5106 requirements.
7.7
Containment, Curbs, Handrails, Kick Plates, and Ladders

1. Handrails and kick plates shall be provided around the perimeter of each deck (except the
helideck) and on both sides of stairways.
a. Where containment of liquids is desired, a pollution curb shall be used.
b. If containment of liquid is desired, the handrail kick plates shall be welded directly to the
deck plate. The height of the kick plate shall be a minimum of 4 inches (100 mm).
c. Where handrails are not present, the liquid containment shall be provided by welding half
of an 8-5/8 inch (219 mm) tubular to the floor system.
d. This same detail shall be used where a containment area crosses walkways stairs, etc.
2. Handrails and supports shall be designed to withstand a lateral or vertical concentrated load of
200 pounds (90 kg) applied at any point on the handrails.
3. The ladder design load shall be determined by the usage of the ladder, but shall not be less than
a single concentrated load of 300 pounds (135 kg).
4. Number and location of the ladders between the main deck and cellar deck, or between the
cellar deck and top of the jacket, shall be based on HSE and HAZOP studies and requirements.
5. The ladder shall be located remote from other deck-to-jacket stairways.
6. All containments, curbs, handrails, kick plates, and ladders shall meet SID-SU-5106
requirements.
7.8
Crane Pedestals
1. Crane pedestals and the supporting structure shall be designed in accordance with
API RP 2AWSD and/or API RP 2A-LRFD, as applicable.
2. The supporting structure is defined as the pedestal and all primary members directly attached
to the pedestal.
3. Bearing in mind that crane pedestals are commonly used for diesel storage, the liquid loads
and the location of the access manhole shall be considered in the design of the pedestal.
7.9
Conductor Guide Framing

1. The criteria in Table 17 govern the design of the conductor guide framing when the conductors
are installed using the drilling rig.
a. These criteria shall be considered for the design of the conductor guide framing.
July 2009 (E)
47 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
b. These criteria are in addition to the consideration of loads imposed by pre-installed

conductors.
Table 17:
Load Criteria for CGF Conductor Installed by Rig
Top level
1.5 times the weight of the string that will initially pass this level.
Second level
1.5 times the weight of the string that will initially pass the second level.
Subsequent levels
0.5 times the weight of the string that will initially pass these levels.
2. The criteria in Table 18 govern the design of conductor guide framing when conductors are
supported off the top jacket elevation during installation.
a. As a minimum, these criteria shall be considered for the design of conductor guide
framing.
b. The design shall not practically restrict the number of locations that may be worked at one
time.
c. The criteria shall be in addition to the consideration of loads imposed by preinstalled
conductors.
Table 18:
Load Criteria for CGF Conductor Supported by Jacket
Top level
1.1 times the weight of the heaviest string to be supported from this level,
or 1.5 times the weight of the string that will initially pass this level,
Second level
1.5 times the weight of the string that will initially pass the second level.
Subsequent levels
0.5 times the weight of the string that will initially pass these levels.
3. The top level of conductor guide framing shall be designed to minimize surface area and
enhance maintainability.
4. The conductor guides at the top of jacket level shall have no cavities where water may be
trapped.
5. The design shall include conductor guides and framing at the mudline elevation unless predrilled wells are present.
6. If pre-drilled wells are used, Supplier shall request design guidance from Purchaser.
7.10
Skirt Pile Guide Framing

7.10.1 Battered Skirt Piles
1. The design of skirt pile framing for battered skirt piles shall consider the loads
imposed during the installation of the piles.
2. As a minimum, the criteria in Table 19 shall be considered for the design of the skirt
pile guide framing.
Table 19:
Criteria for Design of Battered Skirt Pile Guide Framing
Top level
A vertical load equal to 1.1 times the weight of the heaviest string to be
supported from this level, or 1.5 times the weight of the string that will
initially pass this level, whichever is greater.
Second level
A vertical load equal to 1.5 times the weight of the string that will initially
pass the second level.
Subsequent levels
A vertical load equal to 0.5 times the weight of the string that will initially
pass these levels.
July 2009 (E)
48 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
7.10.2 Vertical Skirt Piles

1. The design of skirt pile guides for a one-piece, vertical skirt pile shall consider the
loads imposed during the installation of the piles.
2. As a minimum, the criteria in Table 20 shall be considered for the design of the skirt
pile guide framing.
7.11
Flooding and Grout System

1. The flooding and grouting system shall be designed to have primary and secondary systems,
which shall be separated to preserve utility in case of damage to the primary system.
2. The system shall be fully detailed to allow fabrication from the design drawings.
Table 20:
Criteria for Design of Vertical Skirt Pile Framing
Skirt pile guides
A lateral load equal to 0.2 times the weight of one skirt pile shall be
supported by the skirt pile guide.
Skirt pile sleeve
A vertical load equal to 1.1 times the weight of one skirt pile shall be
supported on the top of a skirt pile sleeve for the worst skirt pile
location to assess the jacket stability and structural integrity of the
jacket, including the skirt pile sleeve framing, jacket leg, and
mudmats.
3. Flooding and grout lines shall be designed for transportation loads and, where applicable,
launch loads. Particular attention shall be paid to wave slam during launch.
4. When underwater hammers will be used, flooding and grout piping systems shall be designed
to resist severe impact forces.
5. Special attention shall be paid to the appurtenances attached directly to the pile sleeves as
these will have the highest accelerations.
6. Piping supports in the splash zone shall be minimized.
7. To permit easy removal of the lines, the design of the flood and grout line supports shall
consider that when no longer needed, the flood and grout lines and supports shall be removed
down to el. 25 feet (7.5 m).
7.12
Bridge
7.12.1 Support Conditions
1. Bridges shall be designed to accommodate transverse and longitudinal differential
platform movement between the two platforms supporting it. Predicted maximum
relative deflection shall be calculated based on a worst-case situation; i.e., the sum of
the maximum absolute deflections of the adjacent platforms.
2. Detailing of the hinged and sliding ends shall include a stopper to prevent the bridge
from coming out of the supports and sliding off the deck. The sliding ends shall also
accommodate the predicted maximum relative displacements (combined x and y
directions).
3. One end of the bridge shall be designed as a hinged support and the other end as a
sliding support.
4. The sliding support shall provide guide restraints in the vertical and lateral directions.
5. The sliding support shall be a self-lubricating bearing element.
July 2009 (E)
49 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
6. One hundred fifty percent of the total predicted translation shall be allowed for in the
end connection and bridge design.
7. The hinged connection shall be designed to withstand 150 percent of the expected
axial thrust.
8. Bridge supports shall be capable of accommodating a 2.5-foot (750 mm) tolerance in
all directions for final platform location, except when the bridge length is adjusted
after measurement of actual distance between platforms.
7.12.2 Deflections
1. The maximum deflection of the bridge due to bridge live load shall be limited to
L/300 where L is the distance between bridge support points.
2. The bridge shall be designed to be fabricated with a built-in camber so that it will
remain level after installation when loaded with the structural weight, commodities
weight, and operating contents.
7.13
Vent and Flare Booms

1. Thermal stresses and steel strength reduction from radiant heat shall be considered in the
design of flare booms.
2. Flare boom design shall consider thrust-induced loading.
3. For all structures, wind-induced fatigue and vortex shedding shall be considered.
4. For booms installed offshore, the boom connection shall be designed so that the boom is selfsupporting prior to welding out.
5. Consideration shall be given to sealing the hook joint with cover plates after the vent boom is
installed to avoid future corrosion.
7.14
Helideck
Refer to CIV-SU-1.28.
7.15
Mudmats
1. Steel mudmats shall be provided, unless Purchaser has accepted an alternative.
2. Attempts shall be made to design the mudmats such that they can be fabricated on the ground
and then installed using a limited amount of welding.
3. The use of crimped or corrugated plate shapes is an acceptable alternative to beam and plates
if the reduction in fabrication and welding cost justified their use.
4. If mudmat knee braces connect to primary jacket braces, they shall be modeled in the in-place
analysis. Joint cans or doubler plates shall be used where the knee braces connect to the
primary braces.
5. Knee braces attached to the jacket legs shall have doubler plates. The jacket legs shall be
checked at these locations for punching shear stresses as well as ovalling.
6. For a large platform, Supplier shall consider a full stress analysis of the jacket structure using a
jacket model that includes all mudmat framing and bearing loads from the soil.
a. The jacket should be analyzed first with supports at the center of each mudmat with
appropriate environmental loads and pile loads applied.
July 2009 (E)
50 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
b. The reactions from this analysis are then applied to a jacket model where it is supported at
the top and the mudmat loads are applied at the bottom acting vertically upwards.
c. This allows the designer to check and document the stresses in all members of the jacket
more thoroughly and reduces the requirement of manual design checks.
7.16
J-Tubes
1. J-tubes and their support framings shall be designed to withstand pipeline pulling forces.
2. Mudline detailing at the entrance of the J-tube shall have gradual slope to minimize the
incoming pipeline span.
3. Above every J-tube, a padeye shall be provided on the underside of the deck with a capacity
equal to twice the estimated pulling force.
4. If a hatch opening is provided where the pipe can be pulled from the main deck, then padeyes
shall not be required.
7.17
Installation Aids
1. Installation aids shall be designed for functional, reliable, and safe installation procedures.
2. All installation systems such as grout lines, inflation lines for packers, release mechanisms,
etc., shall have a 100 percent back-up system.
3. All top-of-jacket and splash zone installation systems shall be designed for ease of removal.
4. Flood, grout, and inflation lines shall be placed inboard of the jacket framings and secured properly
to withstand installation forces resulting from loadout, transportation, launch/lift, and pile driving.
5. For an ROV-assisted installation where an ROV will be used to operate valves, provisions
shall be made to provide a reaction point for the ROV to grab onto with one manipulator in
order to stabilize the vehicle while work is being performed by the other.
8.0
DESIGN DOCUMENTATION
1. The following are bare minimum design documentation requirements. Supplier shall discuss
with Purchaser and agree on full extent of documentation requirements.
2. For jacket, pilings, and deck, structural drawings shall be prepared with sufficient details for
fabrication of all items included in the design. All accepted-for-construction drawings for U.S.
developments shall require the seal and signature of a licensed professional engineer
3. Upon completion of the design, as a minimum, the following reports shall be submitted as a
final record unless Purchaser agrees otherwise:
a. Up-to-date design basis.
b. General descriptions of the structures, weight, and CG report, sketches showing allowable
loads on the platform, and other unique features.
c. For each analysis performed, a description of the computer model with plots and sketches,
description of the analyses performed, summary of loads, and unity check reports.
d. Hand justification and other special analyses performed.
e. Detailed AFC drawings.
f.
Design documentation organized such that a third-party reviewer/verifier can reference

the documents easily for all necessary data and information.
g. MMS permit package for all U.S. installations.
July 2009 (E)
51 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
APPENDIX A
ASSESSMENT OF WIND-INDUCED VORTEX SHEDDING

Step 1
Adjust the extreme one-minute wind speed using the wind variation with elevation law:
Vy = (y/H)1/nVH
where
By = wind velocity at height y
VH = wind velocity at reference height H
y = elevation of member at its centroid
n = 7 for the 1 minute sustained wind
Step 2
Compute the natural frequency (f) of the member in air:

f = (22.4 * (E * l/m)0.5) / (2 * * LL2)
where
I = moment of inertia of member (in4)
E = modulus of elasticity of steel (lb/in2)
m = mass per unit length (slugs/in)
LL = joint-to-joint member length (in)
Note: Member is assumed fixed at both ends.
Step 3
Compute the critical velocity for the member:
vcritical = 4.7 * f * d
where
vcritical = critical velocity (in/sec)
f = natural frequency of member (sec-1)
d = outside diameter of member (in)
Step 4
Adjust the critical velocity to account for member relative orientation with respect to the
wind direction.
Step 5
If a member critical velocity is less than its corresponding design wind speed, the
following vibration suppression methods may be considered:
Change member size/span to increase the critical speed over the design speed.
Use cables to shift the member frequency and thus its critical speed.
Other methods of vibration suppression shall not be used unless specifically accepted by
Purchaser in writing.
July 2009 (E)
52 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
APPENDIX B
DESIGN GUIDELINE FOR VESSEL IMPACTS

B.1
Introduction
The objective of this appendix is to define generic design criteria to design fixed steel offshore
structures for accidental vessel impact. The criteria are a compilation of acceptable industry
practices and should be combined with regional specific criteria for the platforms to be assessed.
B.1.1 Background
During the operational life of a fixed offshore platform, it may be accidentally impacted
by a vessel, which can be a major hazard. Due consideration shall be given to the design of
these structures to provide robustness against such events by designing them to survive the
initial vessel impact and the post impact damage.
B.2
Reference Documents
The following documents form a part of this design basis. Unless otherwise specified herein, use
the latest edition.
B.2.1 Codes and Standards
Several worldwide offshore codes and standards offer guidance on vessel impact for new and
existing platforms (summarized below). Code requirements and additional descriptions of vessel
impact analysis approaches and guidance can be found in these documents.
American Petroleum Industry (API)
API RP 2A-WSD
Section 18, Fire, Blast, and Accidental Loading
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

DNV-RP-C204
Design Against Accidental Loads
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

ISO 19902
Clause 10, Accidental Situations
Standard Norge (NORSOK)

NORSOK N-004
Design of Steel Structures, Annex A, Design against accidental actions
United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Guidance Notes

HSE Guidance Notes Section 15, Loads
B.2.2 Publications
UK Health Safety Executive, Loads, OTR 13/2001, 2002
DNV Technical Note, Impact Loads from Boats, TNA202, 1981
Veritec, Design Against Accidental Loads, Report No. 88-3127, 1988
Health and Safety Executive, Technical Policy Relating to Structural Response to Ship Impact,
December 2006
July 2009 (E)
53 of 134

B.3
FFS-SU-5217-A
Definitions
Design impact eventDesign impact event represents an event selected from multiple impact
scenarios that require specific design considerations. Design impact events are primarily based on
accident scenarios involving vessels that are expected to operate in the vicinity of the platform.
Vessel impact scenarios shall be developed by a risk assessment process, involving a multidiscipline team of experienced engineers. The most likely impact scenarios are the broadside
impact of one of the legs of the platform and the bow/stern impact of one of the braces in the
splash zone. Practices that account for accidental scenarios are provided in Section 18 of
API RP 2A.
For the purpose of a rigorous impact analysis, design impact events shall be established
representing bow, stern, and broadside impacts on exposed platform elements. Vessel orientation
and velocity shall further define the impact event. Operational restrictions on vessel approach
sectors may limit the exposure to impacts in some areas of the structure.
Design impact events shall consider two energy levels of vessel impacts, i.e. accidental vessel
impact, representing a rare condition with a high energy level, and operational vessel impact,
representing a frequent condition with a low energy level.
Accidental vessel impactAccidental vessel impact represents an ultimate condition based on
the vessel drifting out of control in the worst seastate where it may operate close to the platform.
For accidental vessel impact, the impact loads should be resisted or impact energy should be
absorbed without complete loss of the structural integrity.
Operational vessel impactOperational vessel impact represents a serviceability condition
based on the type of vessel that would routinely approach alongside the platform with a velocity
representing normal maneuvering of the vessel approaching, leaving, or standing alongside the
platform. For operational vessel impacts, a vessel speed of 0.5 m/s (1/0 knot) is commonly used.
(The metric system of units, which is the predominant system used in the documents listed in the
reference section, is used in this appendix. In some cases, the U.S. units are also provided.) During
operational vessel impacts, the impact energy shall be absorbed by localized denting of brace or
leg and elastic deformation of the structure only. The structure should only suffer minor damage
without impairing the functionality of the platform.
Impact zoneThe impact zone is defined by the portion of a platform vulnerable to impact by an
attendant vessel. The impact zone is a function of the vessel freeboard, tidal range, and operating
sea states. The following conditions shall be considered in determining the range of possible
impact zones:
1. Vessel maximum and minimum draft
2. Mean low and high water spring tides
3. Operating sea states when the vessel may be in use
4. Associated surge with the operating wave height
5. Platform settlement
6. Water depth tolerance
7. Vessel geometry for bow, stern, and broadside impacts
The greatest frequency of impact shall be near the mean stillwater level. All exposed elements at
risk in the impact zone shall be assessed for vessel impact during normal operations.
July 2009 (E)
54 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Attendant vesselsIt is not practical or economical to design a platform for a major collision,
hence the structure shall be designed to absorb the impact energy from vessels regularly visiting
the platform, i.e., the supply vessels. These vessels vary in size from 2,000 to 5,000 tonnes. The
vessel size in a specific region shall be confirmed prior to assessment. By way of example, for the
northern North Sea, a vessel can be 5,000 tonnes, whereas in the southern North Sea a mass of
around 2,500 tonnes is more normal. For Gulf of Mexico structures in mild environments and
reasonably close to their base of supply, a 1,000 tonne vessel represents a typical 55 m to 60 m
(180 to 200 ft.) supply vessel. For deeper and more remote locations in the Gulf of Mexico, the
vessel size may be different.
Note
In this document, the term tonne means metric ton, which is approximately 2,205 pounds
or about 1.1 short tons.
The attendant vessel details shall include vessel velocity, displacement, added mass, flexibility,
maximum and minimum draft, and vessel shape.
Accident scenarioAccidents result from the occurrence of a series of one or more events that
combine to cause an undesirable and unplanned outcome. Such a series of events constitutes an
accident scenario. The events may result from mechanical fault or human and organizational error.
DuctilityDuctility is a generic term that characterizes the ability of a component or system to
deform without experiencing collapse due to brittle fracture or buckling. A ductile component or
system may experience some diminishing strength as it deforms and still be considered ductile.
Linear analysisLinear analysis assumes that all components and system respond linearly to
loading.
Non-linear analysisNon-linear analysis takes into consideration the non-linear effects of
individual component behavior, including non-linear material behavior as well as the non-linear
deflection of the structural components and system.
Residual strengthWhen a component is damaged or is removed from a structural system, the
system capacity is lower than in the undamaged condition. The system capacity of the damaged
structure is referred to as the residual strength.
B.4
Mechanics of Vessel Impact

B.4.1 General
A vessel impact is characterized by a rapid dissipation of kinetic energy by the impacted
structure and the vessel as strain energy. In some instances, the vessel will strike a
glancing blow and a portion of the impact energy will remain as kinetic energy following
the impact.
B.4.2 Vessel Impact Absorption Mechanism
During an impact between an attendant vessel and a steel structure, a number of
mechanisms are available to absorb the strain energy:
1. Local denting of the impacted member
2. Platform structural deformation, including local bending of the impacted member and
platform global deformation
3. Vessel local indentation
July 2009 (E)
55 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Local Denting of Impacted Member. Under lateral impact, circular tubular sections are
susceptible to localized denting. This energy absorption can be determined either from
load-deformation curves or by detailed modeling of the impacted member.
The contribution to energy dissipation from local denting is normally of significance for
jacket legs only. For braces in typical jackets, the denting energy dissipation is small
compared to the total impact energy and may be neglected.
Platform Structural Deformation. Apart from local denting of the impacted member,
energy shall be absorbed by elastic and plastic deformation of the impacted member, the
platform, and foundation. This energy shall be calculated using the area under the platform
load-displacement curve at the point of impact obtained from the ship impact analysis.
In general, resistance to vessel impact is dependent upon the interaction of member
denting and member bending. Platform global deformation may be conservatively
ignored. For platforms of a compliant nature, it may be advantageous to include the effects
of global deformation.
Vessel Indentation. The deformation of the vessel can be a significant energy absorption
component when vessel impacts on jacket leg. Energy absorption by local deformation of
the vessel may be based on the force-indentation curves provided in DNV RP C204 if no
specific data is available. It is noted that these curves were developed based on a North
Sea supply vessel with a displacement of 5,000 tonnes.
For vessel impacts on jacket braces, it is typically assumed that all energy is dissipated by
braces.
B.4.3 Design Impact Energy
Several offshore codes offer guidance on the determination of design impact energy for
accidental vessel impact. However, they have different approaches.
The default vessel impact energy recommended in API RP 2A is based on the attendant
vessel size and a minimum vessel speed of 0.5 m/sec. Guidance is given in the
commentary section of APR RP 2A, C18.9.2, Vessel Collision. This approach is tailored
to the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) environment and operating practices.
Norwegian codes specify a vessel size of 5,000 tonnes displacement drifting at 2.0 m/s
yielding a kinetic energy of 14 MJ (10,300 ft-k) for broadside impact and 11 MJ
(8,100 ft-k) for bow or stern impact. These design kinetic energies are to be shared by the
platform and the vessel.
The UK HSE Guidance Notes define the accidental broadside impact energy of a
5,000 tonne vessel traveling at 2 m/s as 14 MJ, which is the same as the Norwegian code
requirement. Based on studies of observed platform damage from actual vessel impacts,
however, HSE has modified the theoretical impact energy from an accidental vessel
impact to account for known deficiencies in the theoretical method. HSE requires that the
platforms contribution to energy dissipation should be minimum 4 MJ. This is different
from the Norwegian code requirement where the share of energy is not prescribed, but
depends on the relative stiffness of the vessel and platform.
The recent ISO 19902 standard reinforces the HSE approach but highlights the need to
establish accidental design conditions taking account of known site-specific vessel
operations.
July 2009 (E)
56 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
The UK HSE approach is adopted in this appendix to derive the design impact energy for
an accidental vessel impact. If acceptable to Purchaser, another relevant design code may
be used.
B.5
Calculation of Vessel Impact Loads

Vessel impact loads are typically characterized in terms of impact energy. The total kinetic energy
involved in a vessel impact can be calculated using Equation 1 below.
1
amv 2
2
(Eq. 1)
where
E
kinetic energy of the vessel (KJ)
vessel mass (tonnes)
added mass factor
1.4 for broadside impact
1.1 for bow or stern impact
vessel velocity (m/s)
The key factors in determining the vessel kinetic energy are mass and velocity.
B.5.1 Calculation of Vessel Impact LoadsAccidental Vessel Impact Design
Energy
The velocity at which a drifting vessel may impact a facility depends on the actual sea
state in which the impact occurs. The vessel drifting velocity is related to the expected
environmental conditions under which the vessels will be operating. In lieu of measured,
site-specific velocities, Equation 2 below may be used.
1
H
2 s
(Eq. 2)
where
v
= vessel drifting velocity (m/s)
Hs = maximum permissible significant wave height for vessel operations near the
platform (m)
The deficiencies with this approach are as follows:
1. The added mass factor is dependent on impact duration and is not straightforward to
estimate.
2. The vessel is unlikely to come to a complete stop (in sway, yaw, and roll) and hence
not all the energy will go into the impact.
3. The platform will not see all the energy; some will be absorbed by the vessel itself.
July 2009 (E)
57 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
In recognition of these deficiencies, the UK HSE carried out studies of observed platform
damage to determine the amount of energy actually absorbed by the platform. On the basis
of the study results, the HSE Guidance Notes define the accidental broadside impact
energy of a 5,000 tonne vessel traveling at 2 m/s as 14 MJ, but only require 4MJ to be
absorbed by the jacket structure without collapse. The vessel velocity of 2 m/s represents a
vessel drifting out of control in a sea state with significant wave height of approximately
4 m.
On this basis, it is possible to define, in simple terms, a design impact energy seen by the
platform structure only as calculated in Equation 3 below.
2
KE
1 Hs
am
/ 3500
2 2
(Eq. 3)
where
KE
design impact energy to be absorbed by the platform structure only (MJ).
Using Equation 3, a broadside impact of a 5,000 tonne vessel operating in a seastate with a
significant wave height of approximately 4 m produces a design impact energy of 4 MJ,
which shall be absorbed by structure alone.
This formula takes no account explicitly of current velocity and may therefore be seen as
appropriate for non-tidal or open water operational conditions where diurnal velocities are
low. Where current velocities are significant (typically in near-shore and estuarine areas),
it is proposed that the formula in Equation 4 be used.
2
KE
1 1
am H s U c / 3500
2 2
(Eq. 4)
where
Uc
operational current velocity (m/s)
Note that the constant 3500 in the equations above is only applicable if the specified
metric units are used.
The operational current velocity shall be set according to the circumstances, and be
consistent with the operational sea state, Hs. It shall include only a small wind-induced
component, comprising mainly tidal effects. It may be argued that the wind-induced
component is already included in the wave-induced velocity computation (Hs/2), and thus
only tidal current should be added.
The vessel mass should be the mass for the size of the supply vessel expected to service
the platform. The velocity should be the drifting velocity that would be reached by that
vessel in the maximum operating storm condition. The vessel size and the maximum
operating storm condition could be determined from a site-specific risk assessment.
Design engineers shall attempt to obtain the vessel size and the maximum operating storm
condition from the project team. Once those are established, the vessel drifting velocity
can be determined.
July 2009 (E)
58 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Table B-1 provides various vessel sizes and design impact energy values (both with and
without considering current) for six different geographical regions including Gulf of
Mexico (GOM), northern North Sea (NNS), southern North Sea (SNS), offshore east coast
Trinidad, offshore northern Angola, and shallow water offshore Nigeria. For preliminary
engineering, or in areas where a risk assessment is not carried out, these values can be
used to estimate design impact energy prior to obtaining operations input for site-specific
analysis.
Note that the values in Table B-1 represent the impact energy criteria required to be
dissipated by the structure alone. These values may not be conservative and should be
used with caution. The lowest criteria of the Gulf of Mexico reflect the smaller vessel
sizes and the lower operational sea states. The most onerous criterion is in the northern
North Sea where vessel sizes are larger and operating sea states are more severe.
The minimum impact energies with the current velocity ignored are also presented in
Table B-1. For the northern North Sea, a minimum impact energy of 4 MJ is computed
when current is ignored. The more conservative approach is that the current velocity is
taken into account.
B.5.2 Calculation of Vessel Impact LoadsOperational Vessel Impact Design
Energy
For operational vessel impacts, i.e., planned vessel berthings at boat landings and barge
bumpers, a vessel speed of 0.5 m/s is commonly used. Table B-2 provides various design
energy values for operational vessel impact at 0.5 m/s for six different geographical
regions including Gulf of Mexico (GOM), northern North Sea (NNS), southern North Sea
(SNS), offshore east coast Trinidad, offshore northern Angola, and shallow water offshore
Nigeria. For preliminary engineering, or in areas where a risk assessment is not carried
out, these values can be used to estimate design impact energy prior to obtaining
operations input for site-specific analysis.
Note that the values in Table B-2 represent the impact energy criteria required to be
dissipated by the structure alone. These values may not be conservative and should be
used with caution.
B.5.3 Impact Load Application
The width of contact area during impact is in theory equal to the height of the vertical,
plane section of the ship side that is assumed to be in contact with the tubular member. For
large widths, and depending on the relative rigidity of the cross section and the ship side, it
may be unrealistic to assume that the tube is subjected to flattening over the entire contact
area. In lieu of more accurate calculations, it is proposed that the width of contact area be
taken equal to the diameter of the hit cross section.
In the global analysis of the impacted member and the structure, the impact load is often
modeled as a concentrated load applied at the point of impact. This is a reasonable
assumption as far as bow/stern impact is concerned. It also yields a lower bound with
respect to beam resistance.
July 2009 (E)
59 of 134
Region
GOM
NNS
SNS
Trinidad
Northern
Angola
Nigeria
(shallow
water)
1500
5000
2500
2500
2500
2500
Added mass factor, a (assuming broadside impact)
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Significant wave height, Hs (m)
1.87
Criteria
Vessel mass, m (tonne)
Impact energy KE (MJ) 4
1 Assumed
2 70%
2.0
2
2.0
2
2.0
3
2.0
3
0.33
0.68
0.44
0.20
0.253
Including current speed

(where significant)
0.4
5.4
1.4
1.0
0.7
0.8
Ignoring current speed
0.3
4.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Nigeria
(shallow
water)
the same tidal current as NNS
peak spring current (HSE Guidance Notes - Figure 11.6)
3 Approximate
4
4.0
0.26
Operational current speed, Uc (m/s)
July 2009 (E)
Table B-1: Regional Design Criteria for Accidental Vessel Impact
operational current speed associated with 2m Hs
Impact energy required to be dissipated by the structure itself
Table B-2: Regional Design Criteria for Operational Vessel Impact

Region
Criteria
Vessel mass, m (tonne)

Vessel speed, v (m/s)
60 of 134
speed of 0.5 m/s is assumed
Impact energy required to be dissipated by the structure itself
NNS
SNS
Trinidad
1500
5000
2500
2500
400/2500
2500
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6/0.5
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.1/0.4
0.4
FFS-SU-5217-A
Impact energy KE (MJ)

1 Vessel
GOM
Northern
Angola
Surfer Boat/
Supply Boat

B.6
FFS-SU-5217-A
Design of New Platforms to Withstand Vessel Impact

B.6.1 General
The adequacy of the structure design shall be verified by demonstrating adequate strength
and ductility against accidental vessel impact events that represent vessel impact
scenarios.
Most structural framing systems that meet the general design practices of this specification
are capable of resisting supply vessel bumping without causing an immediate threat to the
structural system integrity.
Conductors and risers shall be located within the main structural framing, if possible.
Additional local protection may be required to prevent supply vessels from penetrating the
main framing perimeter and impacting conductors and risers. If located outside the
framing (installed after platform installation), risers shall be protected from damage by
riser guards or by operational procedures preventing supply vessel access.
B.6.2 Design of Jacket Legs and Braces in Impact Zone
Design of jacket legs and braces shall follow Section 5.0. Specific design considerations
for vessel impact shall include:
1. The accidental vessel impact design energy criteria calculated based on the
methodology within Section B.5 shall be used for the design of jacket legs and braces
in the impact zone. The substructure shall be checked for vessel impact and its post
impact strength to ensure that the jacket and foundation can absorb the impact energy
without causing progressive collapse of the structure.
2. Main jacket column rows (elevations) shall have X-bracing in areas of vessel impact,
unless provided direct protection by riser guards or boat landings in the impact zone.
3. Braces shall be designed to fail away from the joint (e.g., at the brace/stub connection)
in order to facilitate any repairs.
4. Design shall ensure that any element failure occurs before joint failure and that
elements remote from the impacted member remain elastic.
5. Where exposed to vessel impact, knee-braces or other members that support gravity
loads, shall have the ability to absorb the energy of a vessel impact. The ability of the
brace to absorb the impact energy should account for the potential of significant
tension being developed in the brace during impact. The structural subsystem to which
the brace is attached shall be checked including this tension.
B.6.3 Design of Barge Bumpers
Barge bumpers shall be removable and mounted on shock cells. Barge bumpers using
shock-cells shall be designed to meet the following requirements:
methodology within Section B.5 shall be used for the design of barge bumpers. If from
a risk evaluation perspective the likelihood of the design accidental vessel impact to
the barge bumpers is acceptable low, the barge bumpers might be required to
withstand the operational vessel impact design energy also calculated based on the
methodology within Section B.5.
July 2009 (E)
61 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
2. The barge bumper shall extend a certain distance beyond the bottom support to
prevent the supply vessel from hooking underneath the bumper.
3. Barge bumper assemblies shall be designed such that the bumper face is at the
minimum practical distance from the jacket leg. However, the bumper face shall
extend beyond the face of the boat landings and riser guards.
4. The bumper shall fail under extreme loads in a manner that the platform leg
connections are not damaged.
5. Load shall be applied halfway between the post supports for sizing the supporting
shock cells.
6. Load shall be applied at one-third points for sizing the supporting shock cells.
7. Shock cells shall be checked assuming that the applied load is applied in the plane of
the barge bumper and at an angle of 30 degrees to the plane of the barge bumper.
8. The energy absorbing units and flanged connections shall be designed to fail in such a
fashion that the jacket and the impacting vessel are not subject to hazard caused by
system element collapse or detachment.
B.6.4 Design of Boat Landings
Design of boat landings shall follow Section 7.2 of the main specification. Specific design
considerations for vessel impact shall include:
methodology within Section B.5 shall be used for the design of boat landings,
associated connections, and local framing. If from a risk evaluation perspective the
likelihood of the design accidental vessel impact to the boat landings is acceptably
low, the boat landings might be required to withstand the operational vessel impact
design energy also calculated based on the methodology within Section B.5.
2. Connections of the boat landings to the platform shall be designed to minimize
damage to primary members during vessel impact.
3. The bottom elevation of the boat landing shall be located at an elevation to preclude
boats in the wave trough from contacting the underside of the boat landing.
4. Shock cells can be used to meet the impact criteria.
B.6.5 Design of Riser Guards
The function of riser guards is to prevent damage to risers due to accidental vessel impact.
Specific instructions for riser guard design shall follow:
methodology within Section B.5 shall be used for the design of riser guards. If from a
risk evaluation perspective the likelihood of the design accidental vessel impact to the
riser guards is acceptable low, the riser guards might be required to withstand the
operational vessel impact design energy also calculated based on the methodology
within Section B.5.
2. Riser guard layout shall consider not only initial installation but future removal and
reinstallation of the riser guard for future riser installation. Small riser guards with
plans for future riser installation shall be designed to swing from one end to enhance
July 2009 (E)
62 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
the installation of future risers. A large riser guard shall be designed with stabbing
guides so that it can be removed and reinstalled or replaced if necessary.
3. Impact area on a riser guard shall be assumed at MLW (mean low water) plus or
minus 1 m.
4. Connections to the jacket shall be preferably on jacket legs where possible.
5. Mild grade steel shall be used for riser guard fabrication, although connection details
and king posts are likely candidates for high strength steel.
6. Connections shall be designed to minimize damage to primary structural members and
joints in the jacket.
7. Clearance between riser guards and risers shall be adequate to ensure the integrity of
protection throughout the energy absorption process of vessel impact. Any potential
for vessel ingress that could lead to the external risers being struck shall be avoided.
8. Shock cells can be used to meet the impact criteria.
B.6.6 Good Practice in Detailing of Designs
It is important to provide structural detailing that allows for the ductile deformation of the
members impacted by the vessel. In a vessel impact, the majority of the energy is
dissipated through plastic deformation of the impacted members on the structure and of
the vessel at the point of impact. Good ductile detailing allows the structure to dissipate
energy without excessive damage to the structure. This engineering process and attention
to detailing is more important than the numerical value of the design impact energy.
Design guidance for structural detailing to provide sufficient ductility in the case of a
vessel impact is specified in the commentary to Section 18 (C18.9.2C) of API RP 2A.
Robustness in relation to vessel impact shall be incorporated into the design by indirect
means. Indirect means, such as providing member redundancy, avoiding weak elements in
the structure (particularly at joints), selecting materials with sufficient toughness, and
ensuring that critical components are not placed in vulnerable locations, can contribute to
this robustness.
At all stages of the design process the project team shall consider mitigation measures to
reduce the likelihood and consequence of vessel impact.
Details of two types of typical riser guards are shown in Figure B-1 and Figure B-2. Type
I riser guards provide protection for external risers, which are located between jacket legs.
Type II riser guards provide protection for a single external rise, which is attached to the
jacket leg. Underwater welding or stressed clamps can be used for underwater connection.
Details of typical barge bumpers mounted on shock cells are shown in Figure B-3.
B.6.7 Vessel Impact Acceptance CriteriaAccidental Vessel Impact
Primary framework in the impact zone shall be designed and configured to absorb energy
during impact, and to control the consequences of damage after impact. Some permanent
deformation of members may be allowable in this energy absorption. Leg members may
be allowed to reach yield over part of their section provided plastic hinges are not formed.
The brace members subjected to direct impact loads may be allowed to deform and/or
collapse. The joints at the ends of these members shall be designed with sufficient
ductility to allow mobilization of membrane tension in the members prior to joint failure.
July 2009 (E)
63 of 134
July 2009 (E)
Figure B-1: Riser Guard Drawings Type I
FFS-SU-5217-A
64 of 134
July 2009 (E)
Figure B-2: Riser Guard Drawing Type II
FFS-SU-5217-A
65 of 134
July 2009 (E)
Figure B-3: Barge Bumper Using Shock Cell Drawing
FFS-SU-5217-A
66 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Ductility Limits. The maximum energy that the impacted member can absorb shall be
limited by local buckling or fracture.
Local Buckling. Depending on the slenderness of the cross section, local buckling may
take place. For higher slenderness members, the bending moment capacity and hence the
energy dissipation capacity would be degraded once local buckling occurs. The critical
deformation for local buckling occurring is specified in Section 3.10.2 within
DNV RP C204.
Critical Strain. If local buckling does not take place, the maximum energy that the
impacted member can dissipate shall be limited by fracture. Fracture is assumed to occur
when the tensile strain due to the combined effect of rotation and membrane elongation
exceeds the critical strain cr. Table B-3 lists the critical strain cr and strain hardening
parameters H proposed in DNV RP C204.
Table B-3: Critical Strain and Hardening Parameters
Steel Grade
Critical Strain, cr
Strain Harding
Parameter, H
EN
ASTM Equivalent
S235
A 36
20%
0.0022
S355
A 572 Gr 50
A 992 Gr 50
A 913 Gr 50
15%
0.0034
S460
A 913 Gr 65
10%
0.0034
Deflection Limits. In the splash zone, risers are often located on the inside of the platform
near one of the legs, receiving structural protection from the strongest members in the
platform. However, for the sake of convenience, some risers are tied to the braces of the
platforms. Brace impact and subsequent severance can have unacceptable consequence to
risers, and hence riser integrity may well be one of the governing criteria. It is
recommended in Visser, V., Ship Collision and Capacity of Brace Members of Fixed
Steel Offshore Platforms, Health Safety Executive RR 220 that the maximum brace
deflection of 1.0 m be taken as the impact criteria for the brace with risers tied to it.
The function of riser guards is to prevent damage to external risers due to accidental vessel
impact. The riser guards shall be checked to avoid any potential for vessel ingress that
could lead to the external risers being struck.
B.6.8 Vessel Impact Acceptance CriteriaOperational Vessel Impact
For operational vessel impacts, the substructure and piles shall be capable of absorbing
design energy without impairing the functionality of the platform. The impact energy shall
be absorbed by localized denting of impacted leg or primary brace members and elastic
deformation of the remaining structure only.
Member deflections shall be limited in order to protect risers and conductors. Riser
guards, boat landings, barge bumpers, or other vessel impact protection systems shall be
designed to facilitate component replacement and/or repair following operational vessel
impact.
July 2009 (E)
67 of 134

B.7
FFS-SU-5217-A
Assessment of Existing Platforms to Withstand Vessel Impact

B.7.1 General
A fixed offshore platform is subject to possible damage from vessel impact during normal
operations. If the assessment process identifies a significant risk from vessel impact
loading, the effect on structural integrity of the existing platform shall be assessed. The
purpose of assessment is to determine the capacity of an existing structure to withstand an
accidental vessel impact and to identify and optimize the extent of any required
strengthening, repair, or other mitigation and the associated urgency.
In contrast with design, assessment is concerned with the platform in-place condition. The
assessment process may involve detailed review, analysis, testing, or calculation of the
aspects of the design that are non-compliant with the standard. State-of-the-art scientific
and technical knowledge and the best available data may be used in this process.
B.7.2 Condition Assessment
The structural input data for assessment can be gathered over the structures lifetime and
used to better represent its state and condition at the time of assessment. For assessment it
is therefore important that a reliable and up-to-date database is assembled.
The input data should be both accurate and representative of actual conditions at the time
of the assessment. Any changes in use, modifications to deck payload, platform design
drawings, repairs, inspection history, and other pertinent information should be obtainable
from the platform inspection records.
Any damage, repairs, and modifications outlined in the routine annual inspection or
special inspection reports shall be modeled to best represent the as-is condition of the
platform.
Where drawings are not available, or are inaccurate, additional inspection of the structure
and facilities may be required to collect the necessary information. In some instances
additional detailed inspection, using appropriate techniques to verify suspected damage or
deterioration or major modifications might be necessary.
B.7.3 Impact Loads
The process of assessment is intended to determine the best estimate of both the loading
and response of the structure. This will require a high degree of familiarity with relevant
in-service performance data. The design impact loads for existing platforms shall be
developed taking into account site specific data concerning the following:
1. Vessel sizes
2. Operations area traffic
3. Prevailing local weather/seas
4. Marine operations practices
The impact energies may be calculated using the methodology presented in Section B.5.
Impact loads shall be applied at the impact locations.
July 2009 (E)
68 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
B.7.4 Estimation of DamageDamaged Members
One of the major difficulties of assessing existing platforms with damaged or corroded
members is to accurately model their load carrying capacity, and especially their ductility,
after such capacity is reached. If alternative load paths are available to bypass a damaged
member, the member may be removed from the model.
The severity of the damage shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if the
damaged member has lost its load carrying capacity and whether the member should be
removed from the model, if necessary.
Less severe dents, caused by vessel impacts or dropped objects, shall be checked
individually in accordance with the procedures given in Smith, C.S., et al, Buckling and
Post-Collapse Behavior of Tubular Bracing Members Including Damage Effects,
Behavior of Offshore Structures, BOSS, Cranfield, 1979 and in Moan, T., and Taby, T.,
Collapse and Residual Strength of Damaged Tubular Mambers, Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Behavior of Offshore Structures, Delft, July 1985. If
damaged members are found by the procedure to be stressed to an acceptable level, the
post-damage stiffness properties shall be specified and included in the global structural
model to represent the damaged members. Damaged member properties may be
determined by reference to published data (e.g. Smith et al and Moan et al), or through
finite element analysis or experimentation.
B.7.5 Estimation of DamageDamaged Joints
Cracked joints shall be modeled in sufficient detail to assess the impact of the damage on
the global behavior of the structure. A lower bound estimate of the structures strength
shall be obtained by removing the affected joint(s)/member(s) from the model. If the
structure cannot maintain integrity with the member removed a less conservative estimate
shall be obtained by reducing the strength of the affected joint by some factor.
B.7.6 Impact of Survival Acceptance Criteria
Section B.6.7 shall be applicable to the assessment of existing platforms.

B.8
Post-Impact Survival Assessment

B.8.1 General
A platform damaged by vessel impact shall be analyzed to verify it meets post-impact

criteria. The damaged platform should retain sufficient residual strength after vessel
impact to safely resist platform normal operating loads and environmental loads with a
specified return period. This will ensure that there will be adequate time for carrying out
offshore repairs.
Post-impact assessment shall be performed, taking into account the damage sustained.
Component distortion, loss of stiffness and induced eccentric loading caused by dented
geometries shall be accounted for in the analyses.
The post-impact assessment shall be achieved using either linear strength analysis or nonlinear pushover analysis. Criteria for post-impact assessment require a good knowledge of
the mechanical properties of the structural steel, including critical strain at rupture,
dynamic yield stress, and strain hardening characteristics.
July 2009 (E)
69 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
B.8.2 Modeling of Damaged Structure
Vessel impact would cause denting and bowing of members. The relative magnitude of
denting and bowing depends on the energy of input and the D/t ratio, the overall
slenderness of the member and the degree of restraint (rotational and axial) afforded to the
ends of the member by the rest of the structure. In addition to bowing and denting, deep
scratches and gouges can be formed.
Special attention should be given to defensible representation of actual stiffness of
damaged members or joints in the post-impact assessment. Present codes do not address
all damage scenarios and engineering expertise shall be brought to bear on the assessment
of damaged member and the consequence to the platforms overall structural integrity.
The severity of the damage shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the load
bearing capacity of the damaged member. The residual strength of dented members shall
be estimated using the provisions of the ISO draft, ISO 19902 Fixed Steel Offshore
Structures. The effect of a bow on a members axial carrying capacity has been evaluated
by several researchers. Recommended practices are given in Kallaby, J., and OConner, P.,
An Integrated Approach for Underwater Survey and Damage Assessment of Offshore
Platforms, OTC 7487, Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings, May 1994.
Damaged members may be considered totally ineffective provided that their wave areas
are modeled in the analyses.
B.8.3 Post-Impact Survival Loads
A platform should be capable of withstanding a suitable subsequent storm condition in

addition to normal operating loads after an impact has occurred. API RP 2A and UK HSE
Guidance Notes recommend that after a design vessel impact case the structure should be
able to withstand environmental loads with a return period of at least 1 year. In the postimpact condition, the platform normal operating loads and environmental loads are to be
combined.
B.8.4 Post-Impact Survival LoadsPlatform Operating Loads
Platform operating loads to be considered in the post-impact analysis include dead and
live loads for platform operating condition.
B.8.5 Post-Impact Survival LoadsEnvironmental Loads
Environmental loads to be considered in the post-impact analysis include wave, current,

and wind loads. Wave directions shall be chosen to maximize the loads in the damaged
components.
B.8.6 Analysis Options
A lower bound of the system residual strength may be developed using linear analysis
methods, where all component resistance factors of safety are set equal to 1.0. The
resistance shall be characterized by the environmental load that will cause the first
component to exceed its capacity. This bound shall be conservative. If the lower bound
resistance is insufficient to demonstrate adequate strength, then either a non-linear
pushover analysis shall be performed or remedial actions shall be undertaken.
A best estimate of the system residual strength can be developed using non-linear
pushover analysis methods, where post-yield, non-linear component behavior is accounted
July 2009 (E)
70 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
for explicitly in the analysis. Non-linear pushover analysis is performed by incrementally

increasing the environmental loading until the global structural system becomes unstable,
i.e., an incremental increase in the load cannot be resisted. A non-linear pushover analysis
will identify a mechanism of failure corresponding to the residual strength level achieved.
Non-linear pushover analysis shall follow a procedure acceptable to the Purchaser.
The platform should retain sufficient residual strength after vessel impact. Residual
strength targets should be based on the following for specific applications:
1. Criticality of components
2. Exposure to damage
3. Condition of any damaged components
4. Tolerance for interruption of operations
Critical components that support quarters or facilities, such as knee braces, shall have
sufficient residual strength to survive possible damage without causing subsystem
collapse.
B.9
Vessel Impact Analysis Methodology

B.9.1 General
The mechanical response to vessel impact loads is generally concerned with energy
dissipation, involving large deformations and strains far beyond the elastic range. Hence,
plastic methods of analysis shall be used. The structural integrity can either be verified by
non-linear finite element analysis or by means of simplified plastic analysis.
The design against vessel impact is often based on application of a simplified hand
calculation method in combination with linear elastic frame program. Rigorous non-linear
finite element methods are being used in vessel impact analysis to an ever increasing
extent. Non-linear finite element analysis takes into consideration the non-linear effects of
individual component behavior, including non-linear material behavior as well as the nonlinear deflection of the structural components and system.
B.9.2 Analysis MethodsSimplified Plastic Analysis
If simplified plastic analysis methods are used, the part of the impact energy that needs to
be dissipated as strain energy can be calculated by means of conservation of momentum
and conservation of energy. Simple formulas amenable for hand calculations may be
found in the commentary to Section 18 (C18.9.2) of API RP 2A, DNV-RP-C204, and the
Annex A of NORSOK standard N-004.
B.9.3 Analysis MethodsNon-Linear Finite Element Analysis
Non-linear finite element methods include quasi-static impact analysis and dynamic
impact analysis. The majority of vessel impact analyses performed to date have used
quasi-static methods. However, when the duration of impact is short, dynamic effects can
be significant.
The impact duration depends on the size and configuration of both the structure and the
vessel, and on the nature of the impact. Dynamic effects can be significant when the
duration is of the same order or less than the structures natural period. In such cases an
assessment of the dynamic behavior during the impact shall be considered.
July 2009 (E)
71 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Quasi-Static Impact Analysis. The quasi-static impact analysis may be used when the
platform movement and hence kinetic energy of the structure is small. This applies to stiff
structures whose natural periods are short and where the global displacement during the
impact is relatively small.
A quasi-static ship impact analysis is performed by applying functional loads (dead and
live loads) to the jacket first and then introducing impact loads sequentially. The energy
absorbed by structure is calculated by summing the work done due to structural
deformation, local member denting at the point(s) of impact, and (if included) local
denting of the vessel.
The energy absorbed through structural deformation shall be the area below the forcedisplacement curve, provided that the displacement is measured at the point of load
application. Local denting may be calculated either automatically by software (if
applicable) or manually by referring to published formulae. Some programs such as
USFOS will automatically insert a growing dent, arising during an impact, in the structural
model for a quasi-static analysis, and automatically updating the member properties of the
impacted member to account for denting.
USFOS can automatically account for the energy absorption due to the denting, bending,
and elongation of the impacted member and due to the global deformation of the jacket.
USFOS can also automatically calculate the energy absorbed by the vessel by inserting a
spring between the impact load and the structure representing the stiffness of the vessel.
The following quality assurance shall be performed during the quasi-static impact
analysis:
1. The applied gravity loads agree with expected values.
2. The impact load-displacement curve and displaced shape appear reasonable.
3. The calculated dent depths and energies are reasonable and compare well with
expected values.
4. The pile head loads do not exceed calculated capacities. Piles should be checked for
vertical slippage not exceeding a limiting value.
5. The maximum impact load should be reasonable. The energy absorbed in the vessel (if
modeled) shall be checked by finding the energy under the vessel force-displacement
curve.
Dynamic Impact Analysis. Dynamic impact analysis shall be used when the kinetic
energy of the structure absorbs significant impact energy. This type of analysis is
recommended for relatively compliant structures. Dynamic impact analyses require much
more analysis experience than quasi-static analyses. Dynamic impact analyses shall only
be performed where necessary, and with care.
Dynamic impact analyses can be carried out as time domain dynamic calculations in
which the impact actions represent both the direct impact and the inertia of the structure.
Because the two excitations do not attain their maximum value at the same time, the
duration of the time simulation shall be long enough to cover all relevant phases of the
collision. Typically, the direct impact due to the collision attains its maximum value early
during the collision, while the effects of inertia reach their maximum values later during
the collision. Energy is absorbed in both the structure and the vessel, but additional
absorption sources such as energy imparted to platform vibration and energy dissipating
from radiating waves generated as a result of the collision can also be represented.
July 2009 (E)
72 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Initially, the functional loads (dead and live loads) are statically applied to the structure. A
mass representing the vessel and associated added mass is given an initial velocity
corresponding to the design vessel velocity, and hence the mass has the required total
kinetic energy of the vessel. The flexibility of the vessel is normally represented by a
spring between the mass and the structure at the point of impact. The vessel impact
analysis is then performed in the time domain, with the transfer of momentum from the
vessel to the structure solved at each time step. If the program is unable to include local
member denting within dynamic analyses, a dent has to be explicitly modeled.
The following quality assurance shall be performed during dynamic analysis:
1. Mode shapes are generated and checked for the first 3 natural periods.
2. A sensitivity study shall be performed on the time-stepping interval to ensure that
adequate resolution is used.
3. Energy time-histories of kinetic energy, structural energy, member denting energy, and
vessel denting energy shall be checked.
4. The impact force time-history shall be checked against the vessel denting curve.
B.9.4 Analysis MethodsAnalysis Cases
Jacket Legs and Braces. Potential impact from vessel to jacket legs and braces in the
impact zone shall be considered. Analysis cases depend on the project specifications, but
shall include the following as a minimum:
1. Impact at nodes, which will tend to maximize the impact load and the loads on the
piles.
2. Impact between framing levels, which will tend to maximize local denting and
member bending.
3. Orthogonal and diagonal cases.
4. The full range of impact elevations shall be considered.
Boatlanding and Riser Guards. For the boatlandings and riser guards, the vessel impact
analysis shall include the following:
1. Full stern impact, center of boatlanding/guard at mid-span of the vertical members.

2. Full stern impact, center of boatlanding/guard at walkway elevation
3. Six-foot portion of the stern impacts, the corner of the boatlanding/guard at mid-span
of the vertical members.
4. Six-foot portion of the stern impacts, the corner of the boatlanding/guard at the
walkway elevation.
Barge Bumpers. For the barge bumpers, the vessel impact analysis shall include the
following:
1. 0, mid-span impact
2. 0, one-third span impact
3. 30, oblique, mid-span impact
4. 30, oblique, one-third span impact
July 2009 (E)
73 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
B.9.5 Available Software
There are several software programs that perform vessel impact analysis for offshore fixed
steel platforms. Those currently available and the organizations that developed them
include but not limited to:
1. USFOS
SINTEF (http://www.usfos.no) (Specifically written for pushover and
ship impact analyses.)
2. SACS
EDI (http://www.sacs-edi.com)
3. ASAS
Century Dynamics (http://www.century-dynamics.com)
In almost all cases, the user needs to carefully develop the associated computer models,
apply the impact load, and interpret results in order to ensure an accurate answer.
Other software can perform vessel impact analyses that are not listed here; however, they
may not have the special features of the software listed here. If using another code, be sure
that it uses a documented approach to perform the vessel impact. The code shall be tested
or calibrated to perform the specific type of vessel impact analysis for fixed platforms as
described in this document. The user should ask if there has been prior vessel impact work
that can be reviewed or whether there are any benchmark problems to demonstrate the
softwares vessel impact analysis capability.
B.9.6 Modeling StructureData Requirements
Drawings. The primary structural framing drawings, including main jacket framing, deck
framing and pile drawings, and the drawings for the appurtenances that are part of analysis
focus (e.g., conductors, risers, boat landings, conductor/riser guards, barge bumpers)
should be made available.
For existing platforms, as built drawings should be used, if possible. The drawings should
also reflect the current configuration of the platform, since structural changes may have
occurred since the platform was installed.
Weight Report. Jacket weight, and topsides dead and operating loads, should be made
available for the vessel impact analysis.
Geotechnical Report. Site specific data, including shear strength profile and pile axial
compression, and tension capacity curves, should be developed based on modern API
recommendations. Pile driving records may be available to determine actual pile
penetration.
Appurtenance Schedule. The actual number and location of conductors, risers, boat
landings, conductor/riser guards, bumpers, and other appurtenances are usually found on
the drawings but are best confirmed via the inspection reports and photos. The number of
conductors actually installed on the platform tends to routinely vary from the number of
slots and should be independently verified.
Inspection Data. Inspection reports provide information about the current state of the
platform, including damage, if any, such as dents, cracks, holes, or corrosion. The
inspection report should also be used to establish actual marine growth (versus code-based
marine growth that may be used for new design). In most cases, but not all, the inspection
report also contains information, such as the number and location of risers and caissons,
location of boat landings, platform orientation, verification of the platform underwater
elevations, and other useful information.
July 2009 (E)
74 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Above-water photos of the platform are critical for the engineer to provide a feel for the
platform, such as overall configuration and size, but they also provide visual confirmation
of the amount of deck equipment, orientation, number of boat landings, number of risers
and conductors, and deck elevation and overall platform condition such as corrosion.
These and other items that can be seen in the photos should match what is in the drawings.
If there is no match, these items need to be field verified.
Metocean Data. The contents of metocean data should contain the following:
1. Wave height and associated period by direction

2. Coexistent current velocity and profile by direction
3. Coexistent wind speed by direction
4. Tidal data
5. Wave kinematics factors
6. Water depth
B.9.7 Modeling of StructureModeling Requirements
The structural model should include the three dimensional distribution of platform
stiffness. Reference should be made to the structural drawings for the definition of
geometry, member sizes and steel grades, etc. For the as-is condition of an existing
structure, reference should be made to the inspection records and repair records, if
available.
Frame Modeling
Primary Framework. The primary framework of the structure comprises those members
that provide the global stiffness and strength of the structure. They are the legs, the piles,
the vertical diagonal members, and the main plan bracing members. The primary
framework shall be included in the model of the structure.
Secondary Framework. The secondary framework consists of members that only
marginally contribute to global stiffness and strength of the framework. Unless they are
part of the vessel impact analysis focus (e.g. boat landings, conductor/riser guards, and
barge bumpers), the structural contribution of these members may be neglected and need
not be included in the model as structural members.
When neglecting the structural contribution of secondary members, their load-attracting
properties (self-weight and hydrodynamic) shall be accounted for and included in the
appropriate loading conditions.
Deck Structure. The stiffness of the deck structure shall be modeled in sufficient detail to
adequately represent the deck/jacket interface such that the applied topside loading and the
structural self-weight are appropriately distributed to the substructure framework. The
deck, and if appropriate, the modules, shall be fully modeled; in most cases redistribution
of load through the deck can occur.
Pile Connectivity. The sliding action of piles within the legs shall be modeled with the
appropriate constraint conditions, which allow unrestrained differential axial displacement
but couple the lateral displacements of piles and legs.
July 2009 (E)
75 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Care should be taken in modeling the pile/leg interface at the lowest horizontal plan
elevation. The top of pile deflection shall be checked to ensure that there is enough top-ofpile displacement to transfer the pile to leg load laterally. If this is not the case, the lateral
displacement of the piles and legs should be uncoupled at this elevation.
Grouted Piles. Grouted piles should be included in the model either as a composite
member or as a steel member with thickness adjusted to give equivalent member
properties. Since grouting will increase the stiffness of the member, any additional
stiffness caused by the grouting shall be included in the model.
For existing platforms, in instances where grouted legs cannot be readily confirmed on the
basis of as-built drawings, it may be necessary to inspect the legs, possibly with ultrasonic
testing (UT) methods. If the grouting information is not available for assessment, it will be
conservative to assume piles ungrouted.
Conductors. Conductors can contribute significantly to the lateral foundation stiffness and
strength of a structure. In that case, the conductor shall be modeled and analyzed as a
structural element in the structure and included in the integrated structure-soil model using
non-linear soils p-y curves generated from site specific data, when available.
Consideration shall be given to the group effect of the conductors, if necessary.
Conductors, when contributing significantly to the platforms foundation stiffness and
strength and modeled as structural elements, generate a load redistribution through the
mudline plan bracing. The conductor guide framing at the mudline may be heavily loaded
and needs more detailed inclusion in the structural model as primary framework. This
requires special care, as the assessment is likely to show overstressing of the mudline
braces, and modeling may not accurately capture the transfer of loads to the legs.
Conductor Connectivity. The sliding action of straight conductors within their guide
frames shall be modeled with the appropriate constraint conditions, which allow
unrestrained differential axial/vertical displacement but couple the lateral displacements
of conductors and guide frames. Annular gap effects shall be considered.
Conductor Guide Framing. It is essential to correctly model the stiffness of the mudline
conductor guide frame such that the overall simulation accurately represents the behavior
and hence shear is correctly proportioned between conductors and piles. The use of nonlinear gap elements at the conductor/conductor frame interface is particularly valuable.
This attention to correct simulation is particularly important when the conductors are
idealized, for example, when twelve conductors are simulated by four. This generally
requires some plane frame analysis studies to determine a realistic model. It is, however,
recommended that conductors are modeled individually to better represent global stiffness
and load distribution to jacket.
Leg Stubs. If there are centralizers at the level of the bottom bay framing, leg stubs shall
not be modeled. If there are no centralizers, the pile will contact at the bottom of the stub
causing moments in the leg and hence the stub shall be modeled.
Corrosion Allowance. Allowance for corrosion by reducing as-built wall thickness will
only be included for assessment purposes if the annual inspection survey indicates that
there is actual corrosion loss.
Grouted Members. Grouting is a simple repair method used to eliminate inelastic buckling
and provide additional stiffness and strength for members with bows, dents, and holes.
Any additional stiffness as a result of grouting shall be included in the model since
July 2009 (E)
76 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
additional stiffness attracts additional forces. The grouted member shall be included in the
model either as a composite member or as a steel member with thickness adjusted to give
equivalent member properties.
Strengthened Elements. Friction, grouted, and long-bolted clamps may have all been used
for strengthening deficient jacket members in the Purchaser fleet. If sufficient detail is
available about the strengthening, appropriate techniques shall be used to accurately
represent these strengthened elements within the structural model. Where insufficient
information is available it shall be assumed that the strengthening provides full
reinstatement or additional capacity within the structure.
Joint Modeling
Joint Eccentricity. In joints with two or more braces in one plane, the intersection points of
brace member/chord centerlines shall be explicitly modeled. This is particularly important
in structures with large diameter legs and stocky member design and bracing at skirt piles,
where the braces could be short. Joint eccentricities will introduce additional end moments
in the connected members.
Joint Flexibility. The use of joint flexibility may be used in certain circumstances to
decrease the calculated stresses in members and joints, however, the introduction of joint
flexibility can increase as well as decrease the calculated stresses. Face-to-face modeling
with flexible joints gives some benefit in cases where secondary moments are high, but the
benefit shall be weighed against the increased complexity in modeling.
Grouted Joints. The strength of a grouted joint is likely to exceed that of the connected
members. The grouting will also significantly increase the rotational restraint imposed by
the joint, and thereby increase the buckling capacity of the connected member(s).
One modeling technique to represent the increased joint stiffness is to model the joint by
rigid links from the chord center to the face of the chord.
Doubler Plated Joints. Doubler plating is used on joints to improve the static strength and
in most instances no detailed modeling is required. In cases where the platform has
doubler plates, the impact on joint strength shall be assessed during the assessment postprocessing.
Ground Joints. Grinding is commonly used on cracks to improve fatigue life by reducing
stress concentration and removing hairline cracks. In most instances the impact on joint
strength should be negligible and detailed modeling should not be required.
Foundation Modeling. Sections 6.7, 6.8, and 6.9 of API RP 2A-WSD 21st Edition
recommendations shall be used to simulate soil reaction for axially loaded piles. Laterally
loaded piles and pile group action (except that p-y modifiers for pile group in soft clay)
shall be derived by the method given in the paper, Procedures for Analysis of Laterally
Load Pile Groups in Soft Clay. The application procedures are clearly described, but they
require reference to the paper, Correlation for Design of Laterally Load Piles in Soft
Clay.
Structural/Soil Interaction. The foundation shall be modeled and analyzed as a fully

integrated part of the structure using non-linear p-y and t-z curves representing the soil
stiffness and capacity. Particular care should be taken when modeling thin layers near the
mudline, where p-y curves change rapidly, and to accurately model the soil layers in the
depth that the piles are expected to terminate.
July 2009 (E)
77 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
To properly assess the pile penetrations, Purchaser pile driving records shall be reviewed
to determine actual penetrations. If it is apparent that the platforms have sustained seafloor
scouring, it is necessary to account for any loss of soil-pile contact in the models.
The non-linear response curves for lateral resistance (p-y), skin friction (t-z), and end
bearing (q-z) shall be modeled into the analysis and the soil structure interaction
automatically solved by an iterative technique. In this way, individual piles never carry
more than their ultimate load because excess load is automatically shed to other piles. The
effects of the redistribution of the foundation loads on the structure is also automatically
determined.
For platforms with pile groups, the non-linear soil p-y and t-z curves of individual piles
shall be adjusted to account for pile group effects. The influence of a pile group on global
structural behavior may be modeled by simpler means, such as the use of an equivalent
single member with the equivalent structural and foundation properties.
Pile/Structure Interaction. The modeling of the pile/leg connection can significantly affect
the distribution of shears and moments into the jacket and can significantly alter the
stresses in the piles. The use of gap elements is particularly valuable. However, each case
shall be treated on its merits as the cost of introducing a non-linear (NL) link to model the
gap between leg and pile can increase the computing cost for a typical analysis by 100
percent. But where there are bottom bay extensions, or when pile head moments are high,
and bottom bay shear is critical the introduction of NL links, softening the jacket/pile
connection and hence reducing pile head moments can give stress reductions of the order
of 10 percent and more to the jacket. Equally, if the pile maximum stresses, which occur
20 ft 30 ft below mudline are critical, NL links, which should lead to increased
maximum bending stresses, shall be used to give an upper bound on pile stresses.
P-Y Modifiers for Conductors. Where the conductors are capable of carrying a proportion
of the base shear, consideration shall be given to including load deflection (p-y) curves in
the structural model. Since such curves are specific to the diameter of the conductors,
separate p-y curves shall be required for assessing the lateral load bearing capacity of
conductors. Typically, the conductors may take a 10 to 20 percent proportion of the base
shear when there is a mudline conductor guide frame present.
To correctly model the p-y characteristics, allowance shall be made for the group effect of
the conductors and this is achieved by modifying the simple conductor p-y curve. The
procedure for obtaining the modification factor (y-modifier) is described in the report
Platform Assessment Analyses - Conductor/Soil Interaction - Significance of Group yModifiers. This information is best obtained from soil consultants. However, the Group
y-modifier in soft clay may be obtained by the method described in Procedures for
Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Soft Clay.
Pile Failure Simulation. Where pile failure is expected, the global pile group safety factor
shall be obtained by factoring the t-z and q-z curves by the desired global safety factor.
This also automatically allows for the effects of pile load redistribution on the jacket
structure to be accounted for.
All loads to be applied to the deck/topside and jacket for vessel impact analysis shall
include the following.
July 2009 (E)
78 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
B.9.8 Modeling of StructureDesign Loads

Dead Loads. Dead loads will not change during the normal design life of a platform. They
include the steel and dry equipment weights from the topsides plus the self-weight of all
structural and non-structural elements of the jacket and piles.
The structural weight associated with the actual structural members that are modeled shall
be calculated and applied automatically within the structural analysis software. A specific
load case shall be generated to account for the steel not modeled. The application of the
loads to account for the non-modeled steel shall be applied consistently with respect to the
actual load path in the as-built condition.
Live Loads. Live loads may change in magnitude, position, and/or direction during the
normal design life of a platform. They include the actual equipment and area live loads
from the topsides or area live loads with appropriate reduction factor plus any other
gravity loads from the topsides or jacket that may not be present at all times, but will be
experienced during platform operations. Area loads may be used only where they result in
conservative estimates of the expected actual loads.
Live loads are defined as variable loads that are associated with the operations of the
platform. The live loads generally have a fixed position and magnitude for each specific
operating condition.
Environmental Loads. Environmental loads include wind, wave, and current loads, and
accelerations due to wave dynamics.
Load Combinations. Dead, live, and environmental loading combinations that exist at the
time of vessel impact shall be considered in the analysis.
The design impact loads shall be combined with dead, live and environmental loads. The
environmental conditions and operational conditions shall be consistent with the assumed
design impact event.
B.10
References Used in Preparing Appendix B
1. API RP2A - WSD, Recommended Practice for the Planning, Designing and Construction of
Fixed Offshore Platforms - Working Stress Design, 21st Edition, Errata and Supplement,
October 2005.
2. ISO 19902 Fixed Steel Offshore Structures.
3. Health and Safety Executive, Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and
Certification, Fourth Edition, 1993.
4. Det Norske Veritas, Design Against Accidental Loads, DNV-RP-C204, November 2004.
5. Det Norske Veritas, Impact Loads from Boats, TNA202, 1981.
6. EN 1991-1-7:2006, Eurocode 1, Actions on Structures, 2006.
7. Health and Safety Executive, Technical Policy Relating to Structural Response to Ship
Impact, December 2006.
8. Veritec, JIP-Design Against Accidental Loads, Report No. 88-3127, 1988.
9. Norwegian Technology Standards Institute, Design of Steel Structures, Norsok standard N004, October 2004.
10. HSE, Loads, Health Safety Executive OTR 013/2001, 2002.
July 2009 (E)
79 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
11. Visser, V., Ship Collision and Capacity of Brace Members of Fixed Steel Offshore
Platforms, Health Safety Executive RR 220, 2004.
12. Skallerud, B. and Amdahl, J., Non-linear Analysis of Offshore Structures, Research Studies
Press Ltd., 2002.
13. MSL, Joint Industry Project Report: Effect of Vessel Impact on Intact and Damaged
Structures, DOC REF C209R007 Rev 1, July 1999.
14. Kenny, J. P., Protection of Offshore Installations against Impact, Health Safety Executive
OTI 88 535, 1988.
15. Robson, J. K., Ship/Platform Collision Incident Database (2001), Health Safety Executive
RR053, 2003.
16. Ronalds, B. F., Vessel Impact Design for Steel Jackets, OTC 6384, 1990.
17. Norwegian Technology Standards Institute, Norsok Standard N-003, Action and Action
Effects, February 1999.
18. American Institute of Steel Construction, Specification for the Design, Fabrication and
Erection of Structural Steel for Buildings - Allowable Stress Design and Plastic Design.
19. Visser, V., Resistance of Jack-up Conductors to Boat Impact, Health Safety Executive OTO
98 029, 1998.
20. Zeioddini, M., Harding, J. E. and Parke, G. A. R., Effect of Impact Damage on the Capacity
of Tubular Steel Members of Offshore Structures, Marine Structures, Vol 11 141-157, 1998.
21. Allan, J. D. and Marshall, J., The Effect of Ship Impact on the Load Carrying Capacity of
Steel Tubes, Health Safety Executive OTH 90 317, 1992.
22. Smith, C. S., et al., Buckling and Post-Collapse Behavior of Tubular Bracing Members
Including Damage Effects, Behavior of Offshore Structures, BOSS, Cranfield, 1979.
23. Moan, T., and Taby, T., Collapse and Residual Strength of Damaged Tubular Members,
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Behavior of Offshore Structures, Delft,
July 1985.
24. Bogard, D. and Matlock, H., Procedures for Analysis of Laterally Loaded Pile Groups in Soft
Cla, Proceedings of the Conference on Geotechnical Practice in Offshore Engineering
Practice, ASCE, 499-535, 1983.
25. Matlock, H., Correlation for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay, Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 1204, Houston, Texas, May 1970.
26. Petro-Marine Engineering, Platform Assessment Analyses - Significance of Group YModifiers, Report No. 1167/81/83.
27. Kallaby, J., and OConnor, P., An Integrated Approach for Underwater Survey and Damage
Assessment of Offshore Platforms, OTC 7487, Offshore Technology Conference
Proceedings, May 1994.
28. Chevron ETC, Metocean and Hydrodynamic Criteria for Shallow Fixed Structures and
Pipelines off West Africa, Revision 11, June 2004.
July 2009 (E)
80 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
APPENDIX C
DESIGN GUIDELINE FOR DROPPED OBJECTS

C.1
Introduction
The objective of this document is to define generic design criteria to design topside structures of
fixed offshore platforms for accidental loading from dropped objects.
Note
The metric system of units, which is the predominant system of units in the reference
documents, is used in this appendix. Also, the term tonne means metric ton, which is
approximately 2,205 pounds or about 1.1 short tons.
C.1.1 Background
During the operational life of a fixed offshore platform, an object can be inadvertently dropped on
to exposed surfaces of topsides structures. Due consideration shall be given to the design of the
topsides structures to provide robustness against such events. The platform should be designed to
survive the initial impact from dropped objects and the post impact damage.
A dropped object analysis shall be undertaken to evaluate the impact energy and potential damage
caused by dropped objects based on crane usage and objects lifted during drill-rig workover and
platform production activities.
C.2
Reference Documents
C.2.1 Codes and Standards
Several worldwide offshore codes and standards offer guidance on the design of offshore
platforms for dropped objects (summarized below). Code requirements and additional descriptions
of dropped object analysis approaches and guidance can be found in these documents.
API RP2A
ISO 19902
Clause 10, Accidental Situations
DNV-RP-C20
Design Against Accident Loads
NORSOK N-004
Design of Steel Structures, Annex A, Design Against Accidental Actions
C.2.2 Publications
Veritec, Design Against Accidental Loads, JIP Report No. 88-3127, 1988.
Gandekar, A. D., Yettarn, A. L., and Fletcher, W. A., Sandwich Panels as an Efficient Form of
Protection Against Dropped Objects, The Structural Engineer, Vol 67, No. 13, July 1988.
C.3
Definitions
Design drop eventAn event where the impact loads from a dropped object can be resisted or
impact energy can be absorbed without adverse effect on structural integrity. Design drop events
define what objects will be dropped and the potential fall height.
Design drop events are selected from all the possible accident scenarios based on an evaluation of
consequence and risk through a dropped object safety study, involving a multi-discipline team of
experienced engineers. The dropped object safety study defines lift weights and frequencies for
objects to be handled and where they are handled. Lifts typically include drill pipe, drill collars,
conductors, drilling equipment, containers, tote tanks, food containers, equipment maintenance
July 2009 (E)
81 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
lifts, etc. Based on these evaluations, a number of design drop events are defined. Practices that
account for accidental events are provided in Section 18 of API RP 2A.
Design drop events will most likely result from crane operations or drilling operations. Dropped
object accidents resulting from crane operations are a major design concern due to the frequency
of operation and the lift height potential. For crane operations, and for each platform area, the
number of objects, their size, configuration, and weight that will be lifted shall be identified in the
dropped object safety study. The average potential drop height for the different objects shall be
assessed from the likely routings and lift heights identified. When evaluating the impact risk from
dropped objects the nature of all crane operation in the platform vicinity shall be taken into
account. If the probability of impact is not negligible, relevant accidental design situations shall be
defined and evaluated.
Deck drop zoneThe deck drop zone is defined by the area of a deck vulnerable to impact by
dropped objects. The deck drop zone shall be identified based on an evaluation of consequence
and risk through a dropped object safety study.
The deck drop zones include the well-head module, drill floor, process module, process equipment
and pipe-work, pipe racks, laydown areas, and generally any region of hazardous components
where damage could threaten the integrity of the platform.
Accident scenarioAccidents result from the occurrence of a series of one or more events that
combine to cause an undesirable and unplanned outcome. Such a series of events constitutes an
accident scenario. The events may result from mechanical fault or human and organizational error.
DuctilityDuctility is a generic term that characterizes the ability of a component or system to
deform without experiencing collapse due to brittle fracture or buckling. A ductile component or
system may experience some diminishing strength as it deforms and will still be considered
ductile.
Linear analysisLinear analysis assumes that all components and the system respond linearly to
loading.
Non-linear analysisNon-linear analysis takes into consideration the non-linear effects of
individual component behavior, including non-linear material behavior as well as the non-linear
deflection of the structural components and system.
Residual strengthWhen a component is damaged or is removed from a structural system, the
system capacity is lower than in the undamaged condition. The system capacity of the damaged
structure is referred to as the residual strength.
C.4
Mechanics of Dropped Object Impact

C.4.1 General
A dropped object impact is characterized by a rapid dissipation of kinetic energy by the

impacted structure and, possibly, by the dropped object. The kinetic energy is governed by
the mass of the object and the velocity of the object at the instant of impact. In most cases,
the major part of the kinetic energy has to be dissipated as strain energy. Generally, this
involves large plastic strains and significant structural damage to the impacted structure.
The strain energy dissipation is estimated from force-deformation relationships for the
structure and the object, where the deformations in the structure shall comply with
ductility and stability requirements.
July 2009 (E)
82 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
C.4.2 Impact Energy
The impact energy is related to the mass of the dropped object and velocity at impact as in
Equation 5 below:
1 2
mv
2
(Eq. 5)
where
E
impact energy (kJ)
mass of dropped object (tonne)
velocity of dropped object at impact (m/s)
The key factors in determining the impact energy are mass and velocity. The velocity
depends on the fall height, given by
v 2 gh
(Eq. 6)
where
h
elevation change of the center of gravity of dropped object (m)
gravity acceleration (m/s2)
C.4.3 Energy Absorption Mechanism
The energy absorbed by the structure subjected to impact can be split into the following
stages:
1. At the moment of impact, sound, heat, and stress waves are generated and momentum
is imparted to the structure. In general, the energy absorbed in this stage is small and
could be ignored.
2. The energy absorbed during elastic deformation is small compared to the later stage.
Typically this would be about 2 percent of the total capacity and could be ignored.
3. For plastic deformation and up to ultimate tensile failure, most of the impact energy
will normally be absorbed during this stage.
The energy absorption within an impacted object is very much dependent on the mode of
impact and its rigidity relative to the impacted structure. Often the dropped object can be
assumed to be infinitely rigid (e.g., axial impact from pipes and massive objects). Most of
the impact energy will normally be absorbed by the impacted structure. Ordinarily, the
energy absorption of the dropped object is not considered.
If the object is assumed to be deformable, the interactive nature of the deformation of the
two structures shall be recognized. Calculation of energy dissipation in deformable
dropped objects shall be based on recognized methods for plastic analysis. The collapse
mechanism assumed shall yield a realistic representation of the true deformation field.
July 2009 (E)
83 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
C.4.4 Energy Absorption Capacity
The dynamic aspects of the impact are assumed to be adequately modeled by the
assumption of a quasi-static process. It is therefore acceptable to calculate an equivalent
static load (impact load) for use in design calculations as long as it produces the same
required impact energy. The structural response of the dropped object and the impacted
structure can formally be represented as load-deformation relationships. The part of the
impact energy dissipated as strain energy is equal to the total area under the loaddeformation curves.
Each dropped object is a one-off case since minor parameter changes for the separate
structural elements, dropped object, or impact point may affect the structural response
significantly. Typically, parameters that influence the energy absorption capacity of the
impacted structure are:
1. Impact energy as determined by mass and velocity at impact
2. Object drop direction, impact orientation, and location
3. Support conditions of impacted structure, e.g., end boundary conditions and beam
lateral support conditions
4. Behavior of the floor beams or supporting structure
5. Local punching or deformation of the impacted structure in the region of impact
6. Structure materials, e.g., material types, material properties, and member section
Energy absorption capacity may be calculated following the approximate analysis
methods given below, which are conservative for sizing various structural components.
Alternative methods of analysis may also be proposed to Purchaser.
C.4.5 Plates Subjected to Impact
For a deck plate subjected to impact from a dropped object, the energy absorbed in elastic
deformation is small and most of the energy is absorbed in plastic deformation. The
membrane action is not normally considered and the energy absorbed may be considered
to be largely due to plastic bending of the plate.
A simplified method based on conventional yield-line theory may be used to assess the
impact energy absorption capacity of the deck pate. The full plastic bending capacity of
the plate may be considered for the assessment of the energy required to deflect the plate.
The energy associated with the rupture or tearing of the plate does not need to be assessed
if deck plate material under simple tension can be guaranteed to 20 percent strain.
July 2009 (E)
84 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Figure C-1: Stringer Rectangle Plate Impacted at Point O
Figure C-1 presents a rectangle plate impacted at point O. Total energy absorbed by the
impacted plate due to point load at O can be calculated as shown in Equation 7 below:
E p 2M p (
L1 L2 L1 L2
)
ab
cd
(Eq. 7)
For impact in the center of a plate, the simplified Equation 8 can be used:
E p 8M p ( 1 / )
(Eq. 8)
where
Ep
energy absorbed by plate (kJ),
a, b, c and d = distances from impact point to plate edges (m), as shown in Figure 4 1,
aspect ratio of plate =L1/L2, where L1 and L2 are longer and shorter spans (m)
respectively,
Mp = plastic moment capacity of plate per unit length (kN)
M p F y t 2 / 4000
(Eq. 9)
where
t is plate thickness (mm), and Fy is yield strength (MPa). Fy may be increased by 10% to
account for strain hardening.
July 2009 (E)
85 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
= deflection at impact point (m)
Deflection limit d etermined by project team

lesser of
Maxim aum rupture deflection , rupture (m )
(Eq. 10)
In Equation 10, rupture is the deflection corresponding to a hinge line rotation with an
extreme fiber strain equal to critical strain (refer to Table C-3). For a typical deck plate, in
lieu of a precise calculation, this deflection may be taken as 10 percent of the shorter span.
Table C-1 presents the energy absorption capacity for a 10 mm thick deck plate with
248 MPa yield strength under center impact. Capacities for different spans, plate
thicknesses, and steel grades may be calculated by factoring the value from the table as
follows:
a. Linear ratios for span width and steel grade
b. Square of the ratio of plate thicknesses
(Refer to Note 3 in Table C-1.)
Energy absorption for deck hatches may be estimated to be half of the above values since
there is insufficient edge restraint to develop plastic hinges there
Table C-1: Energy Absorption Capacity of Plate Panels for Center Impact
Plate Energy Absorption for Center Impact (kJ)
Shorter Span Length, L2(m)
Aspect
ratio,
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
5.46
6.55
7.64
8.73
9.82
10.9
12.0
13.1
1.5
5.91
7.09
8.28
9.46
10.6
11.8
13.0
14.2
6.82
8.18
9.55
10.9
12.3
13.6
15.0
16.4
2.5
7.91
9.49
11.1
12.7
14.2
15.8
17.4
19.0
3.0
9.09
10.9
12.7
14.6
16.4
18.2
20.0
21.8
3.5
10.3
12.4
14.5
16.5
18.6
20.6
22.7
24.5
4.0
11.6
13.9
16.2
18.6
20.9
23.2
25.5
27.8
Note:
1. Yield strength is increased 10% to account for strain-hardening.
2. Deflection at center impact = 0.1L2.
3. Results in table are provided for 10 mm plate with 248 MPa yield strength.The results may be
factored for plates with different thickness & yield strength as follows:
Energy = Energy (table) x Fy/248 x (t/10)2
C.4.6 Beams Subject to Impact
For a beam subjected to impact from a dropped object, the energy absorbed may be based
on plastic bending of the beam on the basis of plastic hinge rotation. The upper bound
theorem of plastic theory may be employed to assess the energy absorption capacity of a
beam assuming the full plastic bending capacity of the beam.
July 2009 (E)
86 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
The impact energy is absorbed by deflection of the beam. The structural deflection is
assumed to be linear and elastic until yield stress is reached. The structure continues to
deflect beyond yield. The impact energy absorbed by the structure is equal to the area
below the force-deflection curve.
Figure C-2 presents a beam impacted at point O.
Figure C-2: Beam Impacted at Point O
The energy absorbed by the impacted beam subjected to point load can be calculated as
E p F 1 / 2 F 2
(Eq. 11)
where
Ep
energy absorbed by beam (kJ),
dynamic force at yield (kN)

for a cantilever
for a simply supported beam
for a fixed end supported beam
July 2009 (E)
87 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
where Fy is yield strength (MPa), We is elastic section modulus (cm3), and L is span of
beam (m). Fy may be increased by 10% to account for strain hardening. For a cantilever, L
is the distance from impact point to beam end, as shown in Figure C-2.
1
elastic deflection (m),
for a cantilever
for a simply supported beam
for a fixed end supported beam
where
Ey
Youngs modulus (MPa)
section second moment of inertia (cm4)
plastic deflection (m)
Deflection limit determ in ed by project team

2 lesser of
Maximaum rupture deflection , rupture ( m)
(Eq. 12)
In Equation 12, rupture is the deflection corresponding to a hinge rotation with an extreme
fiber strain equal to critical strain. Formulas recommended in Section 3.10.4 of
DNV-RP-C204 [3] may be used to calculate the rupture deflection for simply-supported
beams and fixed end supported beams as in Equation 13 below:
rupture c w cr hc
(Eq. 13)
where
cr
critical strain, refer to Table C-3
hc
h height of cross-section for symmetric I-profiles (m)
2(h-zp) for unsymmetric I-profiles (m), where zp is smaller distance from flange
to plastic neutral axis of cross section
displacement factor as shown in Equation 14 below:
cw
clp
y
1
c w clp (1
) 4(1 S )
c1
3
cr
July 2009 (E)
2h
c
(Eq. 14)
88 of 134
clp
FFS-SU-5217-A
plastic zone length factor as shown in Equation 15 below:

clp
( cr / y 1) SH
( cr / y 1) SH 1
c1
2 for fixed end supported beam, and 1 for simply-supported beam
Fy / Ey yield strain
We / Wp, where Wp is plastic section modulus (cm3),
strain hardening parameter, refer to Table C-3
(Eq. 15)
C.4.7 Impact Orientation and Location
Impact orientations shall be considered in defining the impact energy cases. Impact
orientations are considered to be a function of the orientation of the object during lifting,
the nature of the release, and the objects tendency for reorientation during the drop. For
cubic shaped objects (e.g., container, tote tank), the design shall consider three possible
idealized impacts: on a corner, edge, or face. For tubular shaped objects, side-on and endon orientations shall be considered.
The fall direction of the dropped object shall be assumed to be anywhere within a conical
zone of trajectory from the drop point of 10. Flat objects such as plates can obviously
travel much greater distances.
The location of the most critical drop zones on the platform decks shall be evaluated.
Generally, impact at stiff zones will produce small beam deflections with correspondingly
low energy absorption capacity and greater local damage. Impact locations on deck panels
shall be considered in two possible zones: central and stringer beam. Central impacts are
defined as the middle third of the area bounded by the stringer beams or the primary
members.
C.5
Design of Structures to Withstand Dropped Objects
Dropped objects are rarely critical to the global integrity of the platform and will mostly
cause local damage. Nevertheless, the global structure should be checked to be sure that it
can absorb the impact energy from a dropped object without collapse, i.e., the load bearing
function of the platform must remain intact despite the damage imposed by the dropped
object.
Typical deck structural components located in drop zones that shall be designed or
checked for dropped object impacts are as follows:
1. Deck plates
2. Stringers, beams, and girders
3. Hatches, including well-bay hatch covers and general deck hatches
4. Laydown platforms
5. Equipment protection frames
July 2009 (E)
89 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
The principles of dropped object design can be summarized as follows:

1. Determine the most likely progressive collapse mechanism that may be initiated by
the impact loading.
2. Check whether the impacting object has sufficient energy to trigger the collapse
mechanism taking into account any barrier structure and its associated deflection/
retardation characteristics.
3. If the collapse mechanism is triggered, check that acceptable deflection limits are not
exceeded.
4. Verify that the damaged structure can resist the functional and environmental loads in
its damaged state (see Section C.7). It is expected that functionality will be
temporarily lost for some topsides design drop events.
C.5.1 Design of Deck Plates
Objects with small contact areas such as drill pipes or collars will govern the design of
plate elements. Design of deck plates shall follow Section 6.0 of this specification.
Specific design considerations for deck plates in the deck drop zones are as follows:
1. The deck plates shall be checked for dropped objects to ensure that the structure can
absorb the impact energy defined by the design drop events without collapse.
2. The support conditions of the plate, i.e., the stringer beams and surrounding plating,
can often be represented by a support providing complete restraint against translation
and rotation. Plastic hinges will therefore form at the edges of the plates as well as in
the middle. Deck plate weld sizes should ensure that membrane forces can be
sustained to allow plastic hinges to develop.
3. Deck plate material under simple tension should be guaranteed to 20 percent strain.
The rupture deflection is calculated as that deflection corresponding to a hinge-line
rotation with an extreme fiber strain of 20 percent. This is calculated assuming the
section remains plane and the strained length is equal to the plate thickness. The
neutral axis for all the yield hinges is taken to be at mid deck plate thickness.
4. The surrounding structure is assumed to be sufficient to withstand the forces
developed during the impact. A local check shall be made to ensure that rotation is
limited and supports are effectively rigid compared to the impacted structures.
5. Shear failure of the plate at the location of impact does not occur. Punching shear
failure shall be checked if the impact area of the object is small with respect to the
effective load such as from a valve, pipe end, or corner of a rectangular object.
6. If deck plate greater than 10 mm thick is required, floor transition details shall
minimize trip hazards. Mild grade steel is normally preferred for deck plate.
C.5.2 Design of Stringers, Beams, and Girders
Larger, heavier objects will normally govern the design of stringers, while massive objects
with maximum fall energy will govern the design of the primary beams and girders.
Design of deck stringers, beams, and girders shall follow Section 6.0. Specific design
considerations on stringers, beams, and girders in the deck drop zones are as follows:
1. The stringers, beams, and girders shall be checked for dropped object loading to
ensure that the structures can absorb the impact energy defined by the design drop
events without collapse.
July 2009 (E)
90 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
2. The number of stringers or beams included in each dropped object analysis shall be
consistent with the size of the dropped object.
3. For some cases the stringer support may be assumed to be well represented by an
idealized support fixed against translation and rotation. Depending on the framing
arrangement and end fixity, plastic hinges may form at the supports as well as under
the load. The welds between stringer and primary/secondary structural members shall
be capable of resisting as high a plastic deformation as the base metal.
4. The ductility of the beam material under simple tension should be guaranteed to 20
percent strain. The maximum rupture deflection is calculated as that deflection
corresponding to a hinge rotation with an extreme fiber strain of 20 percent. This is
calculated assuming the section remains plane and the strained length is equal to the
stringer depth. The neutral axis for the rotation is taken to be the center of the stringer
beam section (excluding the top plate because it is considered that the high plastic
strains resulting from the impact will lead to rapid failure of the fillet weld between
stringer beam top flange and deck plate). The above may result in excessive
deflections or unacceptable damage to supporting structure (girders /trusses). Further
consideration shall be given to limit maximum stringer deflection to 5-10 percent of
the span.
5. The various stringers involved in the process are assumed to act simultaneously. Their
integrity is assumed to be unaffected by the condition of the other stringers.
6. The surrounding structure is initially assumed to be sufficient to withstand the forces
developed during the impact. This assumption shall be verified.
7. Beams subjected to high impact shall meet the provisions of AISC minimum
thickness for plastic design and for compact sections. If the section is not defined as
compact, deck plate-to-flange welds shall be adequate to ensure that the lateral
restraint of compression flange is maintained during deflections required to mobilize
plastic hinges. Lateral buckling shall be checked. Beam connection welds shall be full
penetration to ensure ductility.
C.5.3 Design of Hatches
Specific design considerations for deck hatches subjected to dropped objects are as
follows:
1. The deck hatches shall be designed to absorb the energy from the impacting object
defined by the design drop events without collapse. The well-bay hatches shall be
verified to resist the impact from a drill collar which will typically govern the design.
2. All welds to the top plate of deck hatches shall be full penetration. No weld seams are
permitted in the top plate of hatches.
3. The supporting members shall be checked to ensure adequate strength to provide the
assumed boundary constraints.
C.5.4 Design of Laydown Platforms
Specific design considerations for laydown platforms subjected to dropped objects are as
follows:
1. Laydown platforms shall be plated and designed for design drop events to minimize
the potential for damage and maximize serviceability. Typically they shall be designed
July 2009 (E)
91 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
for impact from a container or tote tank (or similar) on the same basis as decks.
Supporting braces and connections shall be checked to ensure they can absorb the
impact reaction loads.
2. Consideration shall be given to the influence of the dynamic response of a cantilever
platform when considering total energy absorption capacity. However, the use of
cantilevers shall be minimized and shall, where possible, be braced or tied back to
adjacent columns or deck.
3. Where integrity-critical components are situated underneath a laydown area, the
design impact energy for the laydown platform shall be doubled.
4. Platforms shall also be checked (elastically) for placement of packages with an
applied impact factor of 2.0 (suddenly applied load with zero drop height).
5. Where handrails are required, these shall be heavy duty and removable.
C.5.5 Design of Equipment Protection Frames
Where equipment or pipe work containing hydrocarbon or other critical equipment (e.g.,
exposed piping, valve stands, etc.) located in a deck drop zone, is not protected, a separate
protection frame shall be considered. In such cases, the protection frame may be designed
to deflect an object (by providing a sloping surface) without excessive deformation rather
than absorb all the energy. The magnitude of the plastic deformation shall be checked to
ensure that the deformed frame would not impact the equipment below it.
C.5.6 Structural Materials
Material Types. Only steel of the following grades in Table C-2 shall be considered for
general topsides design unless directed otherwise by the Purchaser.
Table C-2: Steel Grades
Nominal Steel Grade
Mild
High Strength
Fy (MPa)
Ft (MPa)
248
400
ASTM A36
450
ASTM A572 GR 50
ASTM A992
API 2H GR 50
345
Notional Spec.
Beams in upper decks are normally high strength to keep module weights low. When
adding protection frames, there is less incentive to use high strength steel as it is less
energy absorbing.
Steel and wood in combination may be used in particular circumstances if the use of wood
as a surface layer would either reduce the likely rebound of an object or would distribute
the load to avoid local failure.
Yield Strength and Tensile Strength. The material may be assumed to have stress/strain
properties equivalent to a rigid plastic material. The plateau of the stress/strain curve is
defined as the design yield stress of the material. Nominal yield strength shall be used for
new designs. Mill certificate values may be used for fit-for-purpose evaluation of existing
structures.
July 2009 (E)
92 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Strain Hardening Effect. There will be an increase in energy absorption under impact
loading, due to high strain rates and work hardening beyond the yield point. Account may
be been taken of this in the design methods presented by increasing the yield stress by a
nominal 10 percent.
Critical Strain. Fracture is assumed to occur when the tensile strain due to the combined
effect of rotation and membrane elongation exceeds the critical strain cr. Table C-3 lists
the critical strain cr and strain hardening parameters H proposed in DNV RP C204.
Table C-3: Critical Strain and Strain Hardening Parameters
Steel Grade
Critical Strain, cr
Strain Harding
Parameter, H
EN
ASTM Equivalent
S235
A 36
20%
0.0022
S355
A 572 Gr 50
A 992 Gr 50
A 913 Gr 50
15%
0.0034
C.5.7 Good Practice in Detailing of Designs
It is important to provide structural detailing that allows for the ductile deformation of the
members impacted by the dropped object. In a dropped object impact, the majority of the
energy is dissipated through plastic deformation of the impacted members. Good ductile
detailing allows the impact resisting structure to behave in a ductile manner and dissipate
energy without excessive damage to the structure. Hence, the design shall provide a
balance among strength, ductility, and flexibility. General ductile detailing guidelines
include:
1. Design joints and members meet ductility requirements.
2. Provide redundancy where practical in the supporting structure such that alternative
load paths may be developed.
3. Simply supported beams are determinate. Therefore, formation of a plastic hinge will
result in collapse of the beam. Where beam collapse is the failure mechanism,
consider increasing the indeterminacy of the beam.
4. Avoid dependence on energy absorbing struts with a sharply decreasing post-buckling
capacity.
5. Avoid pronounced weak sections and abrupt changes in strength or stiffness.
6. Select materials with sufficient tearing and fracture toughness properties and with a
yield strength significantly lower than the ultimate tensile strength.
7. Provide adequate stiffness and restraint of webs and flanges of beam section to avoid
local flange buckling.
The design methods for structural elements rely on the development of plastic moment
capacity to provide resistance to dropped object loading. All detailing shall therefore
ensure that connections have appropriate fixity to develop full plastic capacity of the
member. Bolting and use of fillet welds shall be avoided. Use of fixed-end deck beams is
encouraged for open decks exposed to dropped objects.
July 2009 (E)
93 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Irrespective of whether a rigorous analysis is required, robustness in relation to dropped

objects shall be incorporated into the design by indirect means such as: avoiding weak
elements in the structure (particularly at joints), selecting materials with sufficient
toughness, and ensuring that critical components are not placed in vulnerable locations.
Indirect design can be achieved by adopting well established details for which standard
calculations exist or that have been shown in practice or full-scale tests to perform
adequately.
C.5.8 Acceptance Criteria
The adequacy of the structure design shall be verified by demonstrating adequate strength
and ductility against accidental dropped object loading. The dropped object analysis shall
ensure the following:
1. The structure satisfies the accidental load performance criteria.
a. Global failure. Progressive collapse of the structure does not occur.
b. Local failure. Plastic deformation of the component is permissible. However, the
deformation should be less than clearance to adjacent structures. Furthermore,
rupture of deck plate shall be avoided.
2. Performance is met cost-effectively, i.e., minimum weight, shut-down content, etc.
3. Repairs to the damaged structure are neither technically nor economically prohibitive.
Damage does not lead to lengthy production shut-downs.
4. The structural component that is struck retards the dropped object sufficiently to
prevent total penetration and thereby damage the underlying equipment and/or piping.
5. Acceptable damage limits are met, e.g., deck penetration depths, deflection limits,
dent size. The post impact deflection of deck plates, stringers, or beams shall be
limited to ensure that the underlying piping or equipment is not damaged, i.e., the
energy absorption capacity shall be controlled by the limiting deflection.
6. Whereas local damage is acceptable, the possible initiation of progressive collapse
and unacceptable damage to primary structure shall be avoided. Damage to primary
structure may be acceptable if the structure can be restored to a fit-for-purpose
condition reasonably without imposing too severe restrictions on operations.
7. Design impact events shall be used to verify the adequacy of the structure. If
compliance with deflection or failure criteria is not achieved, then either the structure
shall be strengthened or steps taken to reduce the severity of the impact such as
prescribing restricted operating procedures. For infrequent lifting cases, temporary
protective measures or devices may be an alternative to significant structural
strengthening.
In most cases, designing to resist all possible dropped objects is impractical. Avoidance
and mitigation of consequences are the preferred risk-management practices.
C.6
Dropped Object Analysis

C.6.1 General
The mechanical response to dropped object loads is generally concerned with energy
dissipation, involving large deformations and strains far beyond the elastic range. Hence,
July 2009 (E)
94 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
plastic methods of analysis shall be used. The structural integrity can either be verified by
simplified plastic analysis or by means of non-linear finite element analysis.
The design against dropped objects is often based on application of a simplified hand
calculation method. Depending on the consequences of the structural integrity of the
structure, the need for a rigorous impact analysis shall be determined. In cases where
approximate methods result in significant structural upgrades, non-linear finite element
analysis methods may be required.
Non-linear finite element analysis takes into consideration the non-linear effects of
individual component behavior, including non-linear material behavior as well as the nonlinear deflection of the structural components and system.
C.6.2 Analysis MethodsSimplified Plastic Analysis
If simplified plastic analysis methods are used, the part of the impact energy that needs to
be dissipated as strain energy can be calculated by means of conservation of momentum
and conservation of energy. An equivalent static load, which is calculated to produce the
design impact energy, is used in the simple plastic analysis. Simplified plastic analysis
may follow the formulas and recommendations given in Section C.4 and Section Section
C.5. Simple formulas amenable for hand calculations may also be found in DNV-RP-C204
and the Annex A of NORSOK standard N-004.
C.6.3 Analysis MethodsNon-Linear Finite Element Analysis
Non-linear finite element methods include quasi-static non-linear analysis and dynamic
non-linear analysis. The inclusion of the inertia and damping forces in the equation of
equilibrium is the major difference between quasi-static and dynamic analyses. These
forces develop in response to motion of the structure, but as the structure deforms during
momentary overload, the forces are relieved. Modeling of these effects leads to
dramatically lower stresses and deformations compared with quasi-static analysis.
Therefore quasi-static impact analysis is conservative and is commonly used in the design.
A quasi-static impact analysis is performed by applying static equivalent loads to the finite
element model to simulate the impact of the falling objects. The work energy generated by
the application of static loads is monitored and its magnitude is increased to a level
whereby the recorded external work is equated to the design impact energy. The energy
absorbed by the structure is calculated by summing the work done due to structural
deformation. The energy absorbed through structural deformation will be the area below
the force-displacement curve, provided that the displacement is measured at the point of
load application.
Dynamic impact analysis can be carried out as time domain dynamic calculations. The
dropped object may be represented by a mass with a given initial velocity corresponding
to the drop velocity, and hence the mass has the required total kinetic energy of the
dropped object. The impact analysis is then performed in the time domain, with the
transfer of momentum from the object to the structure solved at each time step.
C.6.4 Analysis Cases
For local lift operations, gantry cranes, monorails, drilling draw-works lifts, and others,
the representative object for each area within the modules shall be identified from a
July 2009 (E)
95 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
dropped object safety study. Each representative object may be classified as one of two
generic types:
1. Cubic shape, representative of a container or tote tank
2. Tubular shape, representative of a drill pipe or drill collar
C.6.5 Available Software
There are a number of software programs that perform non-linear impact analysis. Those
currently available and the organizations that developed them include but not limited to:
USFOS
SINTEF (http://www.usfos.no)
ANSYS
ANSYS (http://www.ansys.no)
ABAQUS / Explicit ABAQUS (http://www.abaqus.com)

SACS
EDI (http://www.sacs-edi.com)
Other software can perform non-linear impact analyses that are not listed here; however,
they may not have the special features of the software listed here. If using another code, be
sure that it uses a documented approach to perform the non-linear impact analysis. The
code shall be tested or calibrated to perform the specific type of impact analysis as
described in this document. The user shall ask if there has been prior impact analysis work
that can be reviewed or whether there are any benchmark problems to demonstrate the
softwares impact analysis capability.
C.6.6 Modeling of StructureData Requirements
The deck framing drawings should be made available. For existing platforms, as-built
drawings should be used, if possible. The drawings should also reflect the current
configuration of the platform, since structural changes may have occurred since the
platform was installed. A weight report containing topsides dead and operating loads
should be made available.
Inspection reports provide information about the current state of the platform. Abovewater photos of the platform are critical for the engineer to provide a feel for the
platform, but they also provide visual confirmation of the amount of deck equipment,
orientation, deck elevation, and overall platform condition such as corrosion. These and
other items that can be seen in the photos should match what is in the drawings. If there is
no match, these items need to be field verified.
C.6.7 Modeling Of StructureStructural Modeling
The resistance of the impact area may be studied using local models. These will generally
involve non-linear geometrical and material analyses since the local structure may be
allowed to yield and deform substantially under the accidental impact. Appropriate
boundary conditions shall be applied far enough away from the damaged region for
inaccuracies to be minimized.
Reference should be made to the structural drawings for the definition of geometry,
member sizes, and steel grades, etc. For the as-is condition of an existing structure,
reference should be made to the inspection records and repair records, if available.
July 2009 (E)
96 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
platform.
C.6.8 Design LoadsDead Loads
Dead loads will not change during the normal design life of a platform. They include the
steel and dry equipment weights from the topsides.
C.6.9 Design LoadsLive Loads
Live loads include the actual equipment and area live loads from the topsides with
appropriate reduction factor plus any other gravity loads from the topsides, which may not
be present at all times, but will be experienced during platform operations.
C.6.10 Design LoadsEnvironmental Loads
Environmental loads may not be considered in the dropped object analysis. However, if a
dropped object impact causes permanent damage to the platform, the damaged platform
shall be assessed to determine if it can withstand storm conditions.
C.6.11 Design LoadsLoad Combinations
Dead and live loads that exist at the time of impact shall be considered in the analysis. The
impact loads shall be combined with dead and live loads. However, in practice, the
influence of dead and live loads on whether or not the structure survives the impact will be
small and may be ignored provided a reasonable margin of safety against collapse can be
demonstrated.
C.7
Post-Impact Survival Assessment

C.7.1 General
Ordinarily, dropped object accidents do not jeopardize global structural integrity. If a

design drop event could initiate structural collapse, a post-impact assessment could be
necessary. The damaged platform should retain sufficient residual strength after impact to
safely resist platform normal operating loads and environmental loads.
Post-impact assessment shall be performed, taking into account the extent of likely
damage estimated from dropped object analyses. Component distortion, loss of stiffness,
and induced eccentric loading shall be accounted for in the analyses.
The post-impact assessment may be achieved using either linear strength analysis or nonlinear ultimate strength analysis. Criteria for post-impact assessment require a good
knowledge of the mechanical properties of the structural steel, including critical strain at
rupture, dynamic yield stress, and strain hardening characteristics.
C.7.2 Modeling of Damaged Structure
Special attention shall be given to defensible representation of actual stiffness of damaged

members or joints in the post-impact assessment. Present codes do not address all damage
scenarios. Engineering expertise shall be brought to bear on the assessment of damaged
members and the consequence to the platforms overall structural integrity. Damaged
July 2009 (E)
97 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
members may be considered totally ineffective provided that their wave areas are modeled
in the analyses.
C.7.3 Post-Impact Survival Loads
A platform should be capable of withstanding suitable subsequent storm conditions in

addition to normal operating loads after an impact has occurred. In the post-impact
condition, the dead and live loads and environmental loads are to be combined.
Platform Operating Loads. Platform operating loads to be considered in the post-impact
analysis include dead and live loads for platform operating condition.
Environmental Loads. Environmental loads to be considered in the post-impact analysis
include wave, current, and wind loads. Wave directions shall be chosen to maximize the
loads in the damaged components.
C.7.4 Analysis Options
A lower bound of the system residual strength may be developed using linear analysis
methods, where all component resistance factors of safety are set equal to 1.0. The
resistance should be characterized by the environmental load that will cause the first
component to exceed its capacity. This bound will be conservative. If the lower bound
resistance is insufficient to demonstrate adequate strength, then either a non-linear
ultimate strength analysis shall be performed or remedial actions shall be undertaken.
An estimate of the system residual strength can be developed using non-linear ultimate
strength analysis methods, where post-yield, non-linear component behavior is accounted
for explicitly in the analysis. Ultimate strength analysis is performed by incrementally
increasing the environmental loading until the global structural system becomes unstable,
i.e., an incremental increase in the load cannot be resisted. Ultimate strength analysis will
identify a mechanism of failure corresponding to the residual strength level achieved.
Ultimate strength analysis shall follow a procedure acceptable to the Purchaser.
C.7.5 Post-Impact Survival Acceptance Criteria
The platform should retain sufficient residual strength after impact. Residual strength
targets shall be based on the following for specific applications:
1. Criticality of components
2. Exposure to damage
3. Condition of any damaged components
4. Tolerance for interruption of operations
C.8
References Used in Preparing Appendix C
1. API RP2A - WSD, Recommended Practice for the Planning, Designing and Construction of
October 2005.
2. ISO 19902 Fixed Steel Offshore Structures.
4. Norwegian Technology Standards Institute, Design of Steel Structures, Norsok standard
N-004, October 2004.
July 2009 (E)
98 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
5. EN 1991-1-7:2006, Eurocode 1, Actions on Structures, 2006.

6. Veritec, JIP-Design Against Accidental Loads, Report No. 88-3127, August 1988.
7. Gandekar, A. D., Yettarn, A. L., and Fletcher, W. A., Sandwich Panels as an Efficient Form of
Protection Against Dropped Objects, The Structural Engineer, Vol 67, No. 13, July 1988.
9. API RP 2D, Recommended Practice for Operation and Maintenance of Offshore Cranes,
Fourth Edition, August 1999.
10. Det Norske Veritas, Safety Principles and Arrangements, DNV-OS-A101, October 2005.
11. Skallerud, B. and Amdahl, J., Nonlinear Analysis of Offshore Structures, Research Studies
Press Ltd., 2002.
12. Wimpey Laboratories, The Assessment of Impact Damage Caused by Dropped Objects on
Concrete Offshore Structures HSE OTH 87 240, 1987.
13. Health & Safety Executive, An Examination of the Number and Frequency of Serious
Dropped Object and Swinging Load Incidents Involving Cranes and Lifting Devices on
Offshore Installations for the Period 1981 - 1992, OTO 95 959, 1996.
14. Norwegian Technology Standards Institute, Norsok Standard N-003, Action and Action
15. Young, W. C. and Budynas, R. G., Formulas for Stress and Strain, Seventh Edition,
McGraw-Hill, 2002.
16. ASTM A36, Standard Specification for Structural Steel.
17. ASTM A572, Standard Specification for High-Structural Low Alloy Columbium - Vanadium
Steels of Structural Quality.
July 2009 (E)
99 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
APPENDIX D
DESIGN GUIDELINE FOR FIRE AND BLAST

D.1
Introduction
The objective of this document is to define generic design criteria to design topside primary
structures of fixed steel offshore platforms for fire and blast loading.
D.1.1 Background
Fire and blast loadings can lead to partial or total collapse of a fixed offshore platform resulting in
loss of life and/or environmental pollution. Fire and blast events form a significant proportion of
major accident risk to personnel on offshore facilities. Due consideration shall be given to the
design of structures to provide robustness against such events. Structural analyses for fire and blast
loading shall be performed for the platforms at a higher risk for fire and blast events. Assessment
of risk should be based on a Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA) and an Explosion Hazard Analysis
(EHA) in the design phase of a project.
D.2
Reference Documents
D.2.1 Codes and Standards
Several worldwide offshore codes and standards offer guidance on fire and blast loading
(summarized below). Code requirements and additional descriptions of fire and blast response
analysis approaches and guidance can be found in these documents.
API RP 2FB
Recommended Practice for the Design of Offshore Facilities Against Fire

and Blast Loading
API RP 2A
ISO 13702
Petroleum and natural gas industries - Control and mitigation of fires and
explosions on offshore production installations - Requirements and
guidelines
UKOOA/HSE
Fire and Blast Guidance
DNV RP C204
Design against Accident Loads
NORSOK N-004
Design of Steel Structures, Annex A, Design against Accidental Actions
Eurocode
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures, Part 1-2: General actions - Actions on

structures exposed to fire
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures, Part 1-2: General rules - Structural
fire design
D.2.2 Publications
FABIG, Interim Guidance Notes for the Design and Protection of Topside Structures against
Explosion and Fire, and relevant technical notes and worked examples
Veritec, Design Against Accidental Loads, JIP Report No. 88-3127, 1988
NORSOK standard Z-013, Risk and Emergency Preparedness Analysis
Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw Hill, 1964
American Society of Civil Engineers, Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical
Facilities, 1997
July 2009 (E)
100 of 134

D.3
FFS-SU-5217-A
Definitions
Design fire eventRepresents a higher risk fire scenario identified from a risk assessment of
credible fire scenarios that require explicit design considerations. Fire scenarios shall be developed
through the Fire Hazard Analysis (FHA). Practices that account for accidental events are provided
in API RP 2FB.
Design fire events define the fire type, location, geometry, and intensity. Fire type generally
involves either jet fires or pool fires. The fire location and geometry defines the relative position of
the heat source to the structural steelwork, while the intensity defines the amount of heat
emanating from the heat source.
Design blast eventRepresents a higher risk blast scenario identified from a risk assessment of
credible blast scenarios that require explicit design considerations. Blast scenarios shall be
developed through the Explosion Hazard Analysis (EHA). Practices that account for accidental
events are provided in API RP 2FB.
Design blast events define the makeup and size of the vapor cloud, and the ignition source for the
area being evaluated.
Blast wallA structural division that has been designed expressly for the purpose of resisting
blast loads.
ConductionThe mode of heat transfer associated with solids. Each solid has a temperature
dependent k factor which is a measure of the rate of conduction.
ConvectionHeat transfer associated with fluid movement around a heated body; warmer, less
dense fluid rises and is replaced by cooler, denser fluid.
DuctilityA generic term that characterizes the ability of a component or system to deform
without experiencing collapse due to brittle fracture or buckling. A ductile component or system
may experience some diminishing strength as it deforms and still be considered ductile.
Ductility ratioThe ratio of the total deflection (permanent plastic deformation and elastic
deflection) to the deflection at elastic limit. The deflection at elastic limit is the deflection at which
strength behavior can be assumed to change from elastic to plastic.
Fire wallA designated partition, which by nature of its construction and certification status, is
warranted to resist a standard or hydrocarbon fire test for a particular time period. The term can
also apply to a floor or roof panel.
Heat fluxThe rate of heat transfer per unit area normal to the direction of heat flow. It is a total
of heat transmitted by radiation, conduction, and convection.
Jet fireA high-pressure release of gas or live crude containing gas in solution that forms a jet,
which is ignited. The flame burns back against the flow towards the release point. Under certain
release conditions, the flame may be unstable and may extinguish itself. A blast may then result
from the accumulated fuel/air cloud.
Linear analysisAnalysis that assumes all components and system respond linearly to loading.
Non-linear analysisAnalysis that takes into consideration the non-linear effects of individual
component behavior, including non-linear material behavior as well as the non-linear deflection of
the structural components and system.
Overpressure loadingLoading imparted to a body as a result of overpressure acting normal to
the surface of the structure.
July 2009 (E)
101 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Pool fireFire that develops when liquid fuel forms a pool on the deck and fuel evaporates from
the surface of the pool by radiation from the burning flames above. The gaseous fuel burns causing
more of the pool to evaporate. The process continues until the fuel is consumed or the ventilation
conditions cause the fire to be extinguished.
Passive Fire Protection (PFP)A coating, cladding, or free-standing system that provides
thermal protection in the event of fire; it requires no manual, mechanical, or other means of
initiation, replenishment, or sustainment.
Primary structureThe structural components whose failure would seriously endanger the
safety of a significant part of the installation.
RadiationTransfer of heat by electromagnetic waves confined to a relatively narrow region of
the electromagnetic spectrum.
Strain hardeningThe tendency of an elastic-plastic material to exhibit increased resistance to
high strains.
D.4
Fire Loading
D.4.1 General
Fire is a process of combustion characterized by heat or smoke or flame or a combination

of these. Structural steel members gain heat due to radiation, convection, and conduction
of heat resulting from either pool fires or jet fires in open or confined environments. Fire
loads are given in the form of heat impingement on or heat build-up in the structure. The
temperature-time history generated by the heat incident is used as fire load.
A temperature-time history of the individual structural members and panels shall be
determined for the considered design fire events using the heat incident on structural
members and panels. For load bearing members, the temperature determines the
appropriate values for the yield stress and Youngs modulus of the material of the member
to be used in the structural analysis performed. For panels and fire walls, which are usually
non-load bearing, the important parameters are the temperature of the cold face and the
time to reach certain limiting temperatures which determine the walls rating.
D.4.2 Heat Flow Characteristics
For fire load consideration, two types of hydrocarbon fire are discussed: pool fires and jet
fires. Pool fires are characterized by negligible momentum of the fuel. A jet fire is capable
of producing significant momentum pressure load on a flat object such as fire wall.
D.4.3 Heat Flow CharacteristicsPool Fire
The specific mass burning rate (mass/unit area-unit time) for a pool fire is given by:
0.001H c
m
H v C p Tb Ta
(Eq. 16)
where
July 2009 (E)
mass burning rate (kg/m2/s)
Hc
heat of combustion of the fuel at its combustion point (MJ/kg)
Hv
heat of vaporization of the fuel at its boiling point (kJ/kg)
102 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Tb
liquid boiling temperature (K)
emissivity of the flame (1.0 is typical)
Cp
specific heat of the fuel under constant pressure (kJ/kg/C)
Ta
ambient temperature (K= C + 273)
The value of m is assumed to be a constant value for a given fuel type (0.14kg/m2/s for
LNG, and 0.12 kg/m2/s for LPG).
The energy release rate of a pool or jet fire is affected by the ventilation conditions of the
fire and the heat of combustion of the fuel. If the ventilation rate is not sufficient to ensure
open conditions then the energy release rate will be limited by the amount of ventilation
the fire receives.
R = MHc
if Ma > SM
open conditions
R = MaHc/S
if Ma < SM
ventilation controlled/confined fires
where
R
energy release rate (MJ/sec)
stoichiometric air/fuel mass ratio
Ma
ventilation rate of air (kg/sec)
mass release rate of fuel (kg/sec)
Formulae for the ventilation rate exist for rectangular vertical and horizontal openings and
depend on the vent dimensions. For a vertical opening of area Aw and height H the
ventilation rate Ma is given by:
Ma = 0.5AwH1/2
(Eq. 17)
Air supplied by a Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (HVAC) system under forced
ventilation may be added to this ventilation rate.
In order to calculate the radiation levels received by a member, it is necessary to know the
flame geometry. The horizontal extent of the fire is required to determine whether the fire
engulfs a member.
Given the energy release rate R, the diameter of the pool fire, D may be calculated from:
Rm
D 2
4
Hc
(Eq. 18)
The flame length is given by:

Lf = D(3.7Q0.4 1.02)
July 2009 (E)
(Eq. 19)
103 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
where D is the pool fire diameter in meters, and Q is a non-dimensional square-root of

Froude number given in terms of heat energy release rate:
R
Q
a C p Ta D 2 gD
(Eq. 20)
where
a
ambient air density
acceleration due to gravity
Radiation levels from a pool fire are calculated using a surface emitter model. The
radiation level, qir, is calculated from the equation:
q ir
VS e
(Eq. 21)
where
Se
average surface emissive power radiated per square meter of the flame, taken to
be 300kW/m2.
view factor representing the proportion of the field of view occupied by flames.
For an engulfed member V equals one. For a non-engulfed member it is usually
conservative to assume a value of 0.5.
atmospheric transmissivity, representing the proportion of the radiation

reaching the observation point. may conservatively be taken as 1.0.
D.4.4 Heat Flow CharacteristicsJet Fire
For a gas jet fire, the flame length, Lf, in meters is given by:
L f 18.5 M 0.41
(Eq. 22)
where M is the effective mass release rate in kg/sec

For a liquid jet fire, the flame length is given by:
(Eq. 23)
For an obstructed jet fire impinging on local obstacles or confined by plated decks, the jet
shape may be idealized as a sphere, hemisphere, or cylinder with a flame volume Vf, given
by:
V f C M 1.35
(Eq. 24)
July 2009 (E)
104 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
where
C
100 for a Propane release
90 for a Methane release
170 for a crude oil release
110 for a condensate release
For a compartment fire the effective mass release rate M may be limited by the ventilation
rate as described for pool fires.
Most commonly, the multiple-point source model is used to calculate radiation levels from
a conical jet flame. Five sources with source strength equal to one fifth of the total
radiative power of the flame are placed at equal distances down the length of the flame. In
this model, these sources are assumed isotropic emitters. The radiation level from each
source is given by:
qir '
R/5
4r 2
(Eq. 25)
where R is energy release rate and r is radius of the flame

The total heat flux, qir, is the sum of the contributions from the five point sources.
D.4.5 Material Behavior Thermal Properties of Steel
The thermal properties of steel vary with temperature. Nominal thermal properties for
structural steel which are valid for the range of room temperature to 600C (1112F) used
to calculate the fire load due to radiation, convection, and conduction are given in
Table D-1.
Table D-1: Nominal Thermal Properties for Steel (0 < Ts < 600C)
Specific Heat
Capacity
Cs (in J/kgK)
Thermal
Conductivity
s (in W/mK)
Surface
Emissivity
s
Coefficient of
Linear Expansion
L/L (in K-1)
ASTM A36
A633 Gr. C or D
520
50
0.80
14 x 10-6
Stainless Steel
533
17
0.75
18 x 10-6
Steel Type
Thermal properties for structural steel above 600C (1112F) are available in Section 3.4
of Eurocode 3, which details the variation of the relative thermal properties of steel with
temperature.
D.4.6 Material Behavior Strength and Stiffness of Steel
The strength and stiffness of steel reduce at elevated temperature. The reduction of the
strength and stiffness of carbon steel is presented in Table D-2 and Figure D-3.
In simplified calculations it is permissible to assume that the Youngs modulus and the
shear modulus deteriorate at the same rate as the yield strength. Poissons ratio remains at
its constant value of 0.3 for steel, up to the melting point.
July 2009 (E)
105 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Table D-2: Property Reduction Factors at Elevated Temperature

Steel
Temperature
Youngs
Modulus
Reduction
Factor
Yield Stress Reduction Factor at Strain of
0.20%
0.50%
1.50%
2.00%
20
68
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
100
212
0.9400
0.9700
1.0000
1.0000
0.9910
200
392
0.8470
0.9460
1.0000
1.0000
0.9610
300
572
0.6530
0.8540
1.0000
1.0000
0.9160
400
752
0.6000
0.7980
0.9560
0.9710
0.8260
500
932
0.4670
0.6220
0.7560
0.7760
0.6170
600
1112
0.2650
0.3780
0.4600
0.4740
0.1730
700
1292
--
0.1860
0.2230
0.2320
0.1300
800
1472
--
0.0720
0.1080
0.1150
0.0900
900
1652
--
0.0300
0.0590
0.0620
0.0675
1000
1832
--
0.0206
0.0394
0.0446
0.0450
1100
2012
--
0.0137
0.0263
0.0297
0.0225
1200
2192
--
0.0069
0.0131
0.0149
0.0000
Figure D-3: Idealized Stress-Strain Curves at Elevated Temperatures
Idealized Stress-Strain Curves for Steel at Elevated Temperatures

API RP 2FB (ASTM A36 Steel)
1.20
Stress Reduction Factor
1.00
0.80
20C
200C
400C
600C
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
1.8%
2.0%
Strain
July 2009 (E)
106 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
D.4.7 Material Behavior Strain Hardening
Strain hardening is relevant for temperatures under 400C (752F). During fire events,
temperatures usually exceed this limit; hence, no true benefit can be expected from strain
hardening.
D.4.8 Fire Load Calculations
The flow of heat from the fire into the structural member (by radiation, convection, and
conduction) is calculated to determine the temperature of the member as a function of
time. Conduction may usually be ignored for members that are directly subject to thermal
loading. The temperature of unprotected (non-insulated) members engulfed in flame is
dominated by convection and radiation effects, whereas the temperature of protected
(insulated) members engulfed in flame is dominated by the thermal conductivity of the
insulating material.
The susceptibility of a member to heating will increase with the heated perimeter Hp and
decrease with the cross sectional area A. The ratio Hp/A is thus a measure of the
vulnerability of a particular member. If a fire engulfs a member then the heated perimeter
is the total perimeter of the member. For a member outside the flame volume, the heated
perimeter may be taken to be half the total perimeter.
The time steps shall be selected sufficiently small to accurately describe the temperature
time history. Small time increments shall be used when the steel temperatures are
increasing rapidly with time. This typically applies for the first 10 to 20 minutes duration
of a fire. Longer time increments may be used when the temperatures have reached
stationary values. The time-step used shall not be more than five seconds.
The fire load calculations shall be in keeping with API RP 2FB and the Interim Guidance
Notes. The heat transfer equations are given in the following sub-sections for the
following loading conditions:
1. unprotected member totally engulfed in the fire
2. unprotected member partially engulfed in the fire
3. engulfed protected member
D.4.9 Fire Load CalculationsEngulfed Unprotected Members
An engulfed member is assumed to be fully within the flame, whether it is a pool fire or a
jet fire. For an unprotected member that is fully engulfed, there will be no heat loss by
convection. The general heat transfer equation in this case will be:
s q ir s Ts 4
dT
A
Cs s s
dt
Hp
(Eq. 26)
where
July 2009 (E)
emissivity of steel (.08 is a typical value)
qir
incident radiant at flux (W/m2)
Stefan-Boltzmann constant(= 5.67x10-8W/m2K4)
107 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Ts
steel temperature (K)
cross-section area of the object (m2)
Hp
heated perimeter of the object (m)
Cs
specific heat capacity (J/kgK)
steel density (kg/m3)
time (sec)
D.4.10 Fire Load CalculationsNon-Engulfed Unprotected Members
For a non-engulfed member, i.e., not completely immersed in the flame itself, heat may be
convected away from the surface of the member. The heat balance equation is given by:
s q ir s Ts 4 Ta 4
Pto t
P
A
dT
h T s T a tot
Cs s s
Hp
Hp Hp
dt
(Eq. 27)
where
s
emissivity of steel (0.8 is a typical value)
qir
incident radiant heat flux
Stefan-Boltzmann constant (= 5.67x10-8 W/m2K4)
Ts
steel temperature (K)
cross-section area of the object (M2)
Hp
heated perimeter of the object (m2)
Cs
specific heat capacity (J/kgK)
material density (kg/m3)
Ta
atmospheric temperature before fire event, taken as 293K
convective heat transfer coefficient, taken as 25 W/m2K
Ptot
total member perimeter (m2)
D.4.11 Fire Load CalculationsEngulfed Protected Members
Passive fire protection (PFP) is modeled by assuming one-dimensional conduction occurs

through the PFP material, with the temperature of the inner surface assumed to be the
same as the steel temperature. For an engulfed protected member, the heat transfer
equation is taken as follows:
dTss
H K
1
p i Ts Tss dt
C ss ss A d i
(Eq. 28)
July 2009 (E)
108 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
where
A
cross-section area of the protected steel core (M2)
Hp
heated perimeter of the protected object (m)
Cs
specific heat capacity of steel core (J/kg K)
ss
density of steel section (Kg/m3)
Kt
thermal conductivity of the protection material (W/m K)
d1
thickness of the protection material (m)
D.4.12 Fire Load CalculationsMomentum Pressure Load from Fire
Due consideration should be given to the force and the erosive effect generated by a
momentum jet on a flat object. The force, F, generated by a momentum jet on a flat object
is defined as:
F g Av 2
(Eq. 29)
where
g
gas density
cross-sectional area
velocity of jet
The pressure applied to the flat surface can be derived from the momentum force F and
area of impingement.
The gas density is conservatively assumed as that within the source, given by:
g
PM
R0T
(Eq. 30)
where
D.5
R0
universal gas constant (8.314 J/molK)
pressure of gas at source (N/m2)
temperature of gas at source (K)
molecular weight of gas (kg/mol)
Blast Loading
D.5.1 General
The loading generated by a blast depends on many factors, such as the type and volume of
hydrocarbon released, the amount of congestion in a module, the amount of confinement,
the amount of venting available, and the amount of module congestion caused by
equipment blockage. Blast loading also depends on mitigation efforts such as water spray.
The EHA (Explosion Hazard Analysis) will establish the make up and size of the vapor
cloud, the ignition source, and location for design blast events. The EHA will require
detailed CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) modeling to estimate dispersion of the gas
July 2009 (E)
109 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
cloud and then to predict the overpressure generated from ignition of the credible cloud
sizes.
D.5.2 Material Behavior
The nominal yield stress quoted in the codes is a specified minimum for the grade of steel
considered. Actual yield stress shall be used in the blast response analysis. Strain rates and
strain hardening effects shall be included in determining yield stress and general material
behavior.
D.5.3 Material BehaviorStrain Rate Effects
The Cowper Simmonds relation for strain rate enhancement of yield stress is used for
computation of dynamic yield stress:
.
d y.lower bound

s range s
D
0.12 s
(Eq. 31)
where
dy.lower-bound
lower-bound dynamic yield strength accounting for the strain rate

effect (N/mm2)
static design yield strength (N/mm2)
range
maximum difference between upper and lower bound yield strength,

25 N/mm2
0.12 s
enhancement included in manufacturers specified minimum yield

strength to be deducted from dy.lower-bound
strain rate (sec-1)
D and q are dimensionless curve-fitting coefficients as given in Table D-3 for different
materials. Typical strain rates for steel structure are given in Table D-4.
Table D-3: Values of D and q for Different Materials
D (s-1)
Mild Steel
40.4
Aluminum Alloy
6500
Stainless Steel
100
10
Material
Table D-4: Strain Rate for Different Stress Conditions

Condition
Strain Rate
Structural members in the elastic range
0.02 sec-1
Structural members in the elastic range but plastic hinges may

develop
0.2 sec-1
Structural members whose ductility ratio exceed two (2)
0.6 sec-1
July 2009 (E)
110 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
D.5.4 Material BehaviorStrain Hardening
Strain hardening shall be taken into account for tension members and plastic sections
below 400C by taking the design strength to be the ultimate tensile strength divided by
1.25. This effect shall not be taken into account when designing supports against reaction
forces.
Figure D-1 shows the effects of strain hardening with temperature. More details are
available in Annex A of Eurocode 3.
Figure D-1: Strain Hardening of Carbon Steel at Elevated Temperature
D.5.5 Blast Load Calculations
There are two predominant loading mechanisms by which blast load is transferred into the
structure: blast overpressure and drag loads induced by blast wind.
D.5.6 Blast Load CalculationsOverpressure
Overpressure loading results from increases in pressure due to expanding combustion

products. The calculation of overpressure shall be performed using a computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) program. Overpressure is likely to govern the design of most barriers
such as blast walls, cladding panels, fire walls, and decks.
Overpressure loading is characterized by a pressure-time curve. It is a normal practice to
idealize the overpressure trace. An idealized triangular blast pressure-time curve is
presented in Figure D-2. When idealizing the pressure-time curve, three important
characteristics shall be maintained, i.e., rate of rise, peak overpressure, and area under the
curve.
July 2009 (E)
111 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
The blast origin is assumed to be located within the platform away from the structural
members. The blast loading is assumed to be uniformly distributed.
Figure D-2: Typical Idealized Impulse Curve with Rise Time
If required, a rebound blast shall be investigated using the idealized blast loading diagram
shown in Figure D-3.
Figure D-3: Typical Idealized Impulse Curve with Rebound Effect
In absence of project-specific data, a load equal to one third of the positive phase load and
in the opposite direction shall be considered. It is recommended that in the absence of
project-specific data the relationship between duration and peak overpressure described in
Section C.6.3.3 of API RP 2FB is used to derive durations for positive overpressure and
for negative overpressure (rebound) if required, based on the assumption of a triangular
pressure-time history with equal rise and fall times.
July 2009 (E)
112 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
D.5.7 Blast Load CalculationsDynamic PressuresDrag Loads
Drag loads result from the flow of air, gases, and combustion products past an object. Free
spanning members such as primary columns, piping, and braces will be more influenced
by drag loads (dynamic pressures or blast wind) than by blast overpressures. Critical
piping, equipment, and other items exposed to the blast wind shall be designed to resist the
predicted drag loads.
The magnitude of drag forces on the steelwork at any given time is given by the drag term
in the Morison equation:
Fd
1
C U 2
2 d u
before the flame front has reached the obstacle

(Eq. 32)
Fd
1
Cd b U 2
2
after the flame front has reached the obstacle
(Eq. 33)
where
Fd
= drag force per unit length
Cd
= drag coefficient of the object; little information is available for accelerating

flows of combustion products but a drag coefficient of 1.0 is often used
= density of the air ahead of the pressure front typically between 1.2 kg/m3 and
2.4 kg/m3 2.4 kg/m3
= density of the burnt air gas mixture behind the flame front typically about
0.1 kg/m
= velocity of unburned gas mixture
The formula given above shall be used to represent the total force on obstacles with cross
flow dimensions of the order of 0.1m. For larger diameter obstacles or vessels, the
pressure difference across the vessel may also be calculated and added to the drag force
above.
D.5.8 Projectiles
Small objects may be picked up by the explosion gas flow, creating secondary projectiles.
The peak energy for typical projectiles shall be calculated from the dynamic pressure load
time history and their mass.
Essential Safety Systems shall be designed to resist impacts with energy of about 5kJ.
D.5.9 Blast Load Levels
For higher consequence facilities, two levels of blast loading shall be considered, i.e., the
ductility level blast and the strength level blast.
July 2009 (E)
113 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
D.5.10 Blast Load LevelsDuctility Level Blast
Ductility Level Blast (DLB), design level blast load, is defined as a low-probability highconsequence event, which shall be investigated for at least retaining the integrity of the
temporary refuge, safe muster areas, and escape routes. The ductility level blast is the
design level overpressure used to represent the extreme design event. For this level of
blast, the following should occur:
1. Decks and primary steelwork may be severely distorted but the structure should
withstand collapse.
2. Blast/fire walls remain gas proof and attached to structure if required to protect people
and to avoid the generation of projectiles.
3. TR and EER (Escape, Evacuation, and Rescue) systems should retain their integrity
long enough for escape.
4. ESDVs (Emergency Shut Down Valves) should function.
Ductility level blast shall be examined using an ultimate strength analysis method. The
Biggs method may be used to check the capacity of non-load bearing blast walls and
panels using the actual extreme loads predicted for the ductility level blast event. The
capacity estimated in this way will generally be conservative as the membrane and tension
effects may not be taken into account.
D.5.11 Blast Load LevelsStrength Level Blast
Strength Level Blast (SLB) is defined as a higher-probability, lower-consequence blast

event. Performance criteria associated with the SLB may include elastic response of the
primary structure, with the safety critical elements remaining functional, and with the
following:
1. Safety critical systems and their supports should remain intact and functional.
2. Primary and secondary steelwork should remain within elastic limits and, in
particular, there should be no permanent damage to primary steelwork. Local damage
to tertiary steelwork is acceptable.
3. Blast/fire walls remain gas proof and attached to structure.
4. Pipe work and equipment supports shall retain their integrity.
5. TR and emergency escape and rescue systems shall be unimpaired.
6. Installation is expected to restart operations within a reasonable period.
The strength level blast shall be examined using a strength level analysis. If computations
are not available for overpressures for frequent design events, then a third of the blast
loading from the extreme design event shall be used for strength level analysis.
D.6
Fire Response Analysis and Design

D.6.1 General
Fire loads reduce the stiffness and strength of the effected structure. Failure could occur if
the structural capacity is reduced below that necessary to support the existing gravity loads
on the structure. Hence, structural analysis for design fire events shall be conducted to
demonstrate that the members supporting the Temporary Refuge (TR), muster areas,
escape routes, or safety critical equipment shall survive during design fire events and that
July 2009 (E)
114 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
escape routes and safe areas are maintained to allow sufficient time for platform
evacuation and emergency response procedures to be implemented. The results of a fire
response analysis will then determine if and where Passive Fire Protection (PFP) is needed
to avoid failure or collapse mechanisms, either local or global, and achieve the fire
performance standards for the installation.
The fire response analyses are usually performed based on the following assumptions:
1. Unprotected structural members and panels have no variation of temperature through
thickness or along their length. In practice, the critical sections of the member are
considered from the point of view of resistance.
2. Fire protected structural members and panels have a constant steel temperature; the
thermal insulation has a linear variation of temperature through thickness.
3. Each member shall be considered to have reached a steady state. Variations of
temperature are due entirely to changes in boundary conditions and incident heat
fluxes.
4. Conduction between members does not occur.
5. Thermal stresses due to restraint may be neglected.
D.6.2 Analysis Methods
A fire response analysis shall be performed at three levels of increasing complexity thus
reducing the levels of conservatism, i.e., screening analysis (zone method), strength level
analysis, and ultimate strength analysis.
The structural design of the platform shall start with a screening analysis. If a structure
fails to meet the performance criteria in the screening analysis, then a strength level
analysis shall be carried out. If the structure fails in strength level analysis, then a ductility
level analysis shall be performed. If the ultimate strength analysis indicates failure, then
mitigation measures are required.
D.6.3 Analysis MethodsScreening Analysis (Zone Method)
Screening analysis is a design basis check, consisting of checking the basis of the existing
design for the installation and determining if the methods used for the design are
acceptable in the context of design fire events.
The screening analysis assigns a maximum allowable temperature that a steel member can
sustain. This method does not take into account the stresses present in the member prior to
the fire. For a screening analysis the maximum allowable steel temperature is calculated
using the following steps:
1. Determine the yield strength of the steel; as fire is an accidental case, the allowable
stress can be increased to yield strength.
2. From Table D-5, determine the steel temperature where the yield strength reduces to
60 percent.
3. Determine if member is acceptable.
A value of 0.2 percent of strain is commonly used for the linearization of the non-linear
stress-strain relationship of steel at elevated temperature, which has the benefit of giving a
matched reduction in yield strength and Youngs modulus. For 0.2 percent strain
limitation, structural members showing a utilization of 1.5 or less with a reduced yield
stress derived from Table D-5 shall be considered to have passed the screening analysis.
July 2009 (E)
115 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
D.6.4 Analysis MethodsStrength Level Analysis
A strength level analysis is a conventional linear elastic analysis. Depending on the

maximum temperature attained by individual structural members for the duration of the
fire, the reduced stiffness and yield stress of the member shall be used in the structural
analysis.
For a strength level analysis, a maximum allowable temperature in a steel member is
assigned based on the stress level in the member prior to the fire such that the member
utilization ratio remains below 1.00. The peak temperature of each member needs to be
determined for the fire event to check if the structural response remains elastic. For those
members that do not suffer a buckling failure, the allowable stress should be such that the
extreme fibers on the cross section are at yield. This yield stress should correspond to the
average core temperature of the member.
The linearization of the non-linear stress-strain relationship of steel at elevated
temperatures can be achieved by selecting a representative value of strain. The strain shall
be limited to 0.2 percent, thus using this criterion the reduction factor of yield stress and
Youngs modulus are both 0.6. The maximum allowable temperature in a steel member as
a function of utilization ratio is presented in Table D-5 for a 0.2 percent strain limit.
Using 0.2 percent strain criteria calls for reduction of yield stress to 0.6 of the yield stress
at ambient temperature. Fire is treated as an accidental load, thus the allowable stress shall
be increased to the yield stress. The reduced yield stress (0.6Fy) corresponding to 0.2
percent strain will then give an allowable stress the same as that for the structure before
the fire.
Table D-5: Yield Stress Reduction Factor with Maximum Member Temperature
Maximum Member Temperature
C
Yield Stress
Reduction Factor
Member Utilization
Ratio at ambient
400
752
0.60
1.00
450
842
0.53
0.88
500
932
0.47
0.78
550
1022
0.37
0.62
600
1112
0.27
0.45
D.6.5 Analysis MethodsUltimate Strength Analysis (Ductility Level Analysis)
An ultimate strength analysis is a progressive collapse analysis. It allows redistribution of

structural load from failed members and can indicate collapse of the structure after no
further load distribution is possible. This level of analysis will also allow sequences of
failure and time histories of events to be established.
The temperature-time histories of the structural members subjected to the fire event are
calculated. The linearization of the non-linear stress-strain relationship of steel at elevated
temperature will not be necessary for those elastic-plastic analysis programs that permit
temperature dependent stress-strain curves and the reduction in yield stress and Youngs
modulus at elevated temperatures to be input.
The ultimate strength analysis shall be performed by applying functional loads (dead and
live loads) to the model first and then sequentially introducing time varying fire loads to
the model in selected time steps. Structural failure is determined when a plastic collapse
July 2009 (E)
116 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
mechanism has developed, or when unacceptably large deformations have developed

(such that safe evacuation is no longer possible). The time expired from the ignition of the
fire to the structural collapse shall be determined and shall be in excess of the required
evacuation time agreed by the project team.
D.6.6 Available Software
There are several software programs that perform fire response analysis for offshore steel
jacket platforms. Those currently available and the organizations that developed them
USFOS
ANSYS
ASAS
Century Dynamics (http://www.century-dynamics.com)
apply the fire load, and interpret results in order to ensure an accurate answer.
Other software can perform fire response analyses that are not listed here; however, they
that it uses a documented approach to perform the fire response analyses. The code shall
be tested or calibrated to perform the specific type of fire response analysis for fixed
platforms as described in this document. The user shall ask if there has been prior fire
response analysis work that can be reviewed or whether there are any benchmark
problems to demonstrate the softwares fire response analysis capability.
D.6.7 Modeling of StructureData Requirements
Fire Event Information. The following information for design fire events should be
made available:
1. Fire event definitions: release points, released material, release rates, and durations.
2. Combustion conditions: ventilation or fuel limited fires.
3. A map of flame extent to identify engulfed members, piping, and equipment.
4. Radiation levels outside the flame or distances to critical levels of radiation (typically
300, 40, and 2.5 kW/m2) if required.
5. Convected heat fluxes and locations.
6. Flame volumes and shapes for obstructed jet fires.
7. A table of inventories that may cause possible escalation.
Drawings. The following topsides drawings should be made available:
1. Topsides primary and secondary steelwork drawings.

2. General equipment layout drawings.
3. Equipment support details and connection details.
4. Deck grating and plating locations.
5. Fire and blast wall locations and ratings.
6. Fireproofing plans.
July 2009 (E)
117 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
For existing platforms, as-built drawings shall be used, if possible. The drawings should
Weight Report. Topsides dead and operating loads should be made available. The
detailed breakdown of loading should be provided in the weight report.
platform, including damage, if any, such as dents, cracks, holes, or corrosion. Above-water
photos of the platform are critical for the engineer to provide a feel for the platform,
such as overall configuration and size, but they also provide visual confirmation of the
amount of deck equipment, orientation, number of risers and wells, and deck elevation and
overall platform condition such as corrosion. These and other items that can be seen in the
photos should match what is in the drawings. If there is no match, these items need to be
field verified.
Existing PFP distribution shall be clearly identified. The members shall be cross checked
against available inspection data to establish the condition of the PFP and if the members
are still fully protected.
Modeling Requirements. The topsides model shall include the three dimensional
distribution of the stiffness of topsides structures. The benefit of PFP protection shall be
included when considering any fire loading due to fire events. Reference shall be made to
the structural drawings for the definition of geometry, member sizes, and steel grades, etc.
For the as-is condition of an existing structure, reference shall be made to the inspection
records and repair records, if available.
The structural model shall be sufficient in detail to include the operating gravity loads plus
loads due to fire events. The model shall be sufficient in detail to describe the temperature
history in the individual structural members, and sufficient in detail to accurately describe
the stresses and redistribution of stresses in the structural members when subjected to
elevated temperatures.
topsides.
Unless the upper portion or the entire jacket is included in the model, the topsides shall be
modeled at least to the jacket leg work points. The calculated jacket stiffness shall then be
applied as spring supports to the topsides model. A sensitivity study shall be carried out in
order to determine the equivalent stiffness of the jacket support.
D.6.8 Analysis MethodsDesign Loads
Dead Loads. Dead loads will not change during the normal design life of a platform. They
include the steel and dry equipment weights from the topsides.
The structural self-weight associated with the actual structural members that are modeled
shall be calculated and applied automatically within the structural analysis software. All
other dead loads shall be modeled as applied mass at the nodes where the process
equipment, piping, electrical trays, instrumentation, buildings, or cranes are located. For
larger objects, the mass shall be distributed evenly across the relevant nodes.
Live Loads. Live loads are defined as variable loads that are associated with the
operations of the platform, including the actual equipment and area live loads from the
July 2009 (E)
118 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
topsides or area live loads with appropriate reduction factor plus any other gravity loads
from the topsides, which may not be present at all times, but will be experienced during
platform operations.
For an accidental fire event, the maximum live load shall be taken as 75 percent of the
design operating live load. Live loads due to helicopter and crane operations shall not be
considered. The drilling rig shall be positioned in the most unfavorable location relative to
the fire scenario being considered.
Environmental Loads. Due to the accidental nature of fire events, environmental loading
does not need to be considered in the fire response analyses.
Fire Loads. The fire loading is applied as a time varying load, as given by the time history
for the steel temperature of each individual structural element.
Load Combinations. Dead and live combinations shall be considered in the analysis. The
fire loads shall be combined with dead and live loads.
D.6.9 Good Practice in Detailing of Designs
Penetrations shall be avoided where possible. When penetrations are required, it may be
desirable to marshal them together to minimize their number. When they cannot be
avoided, the following applies:
1. All penetrations of a rated fire division shall be sealed with a certified arrangement
such that the overall rating of the division is maintained.
2. When designing penetrations, consideration shall be given to the insulation at the
point of penetration to limit conduction to acceptable levels.
3. HVAC duct penetrations of fire divisions shall be provided with fire dampers located
immediately adjacent to the point penetration, on the non-fire risk side of the wall.
4. Doors and any windows built into a rated division are to be certified to the same
rating. Doors are to be fitted with self-closing arrangements and are to be installed to
open in the direction of escape.
5. Sections of firewalls designed to be dismountable for purposes of access or
maintenance shall be so framed and sealed to retain the structural integrity and fire
rating of the wall.
D.6.10 Fire Mitigation
Consideration of fire mitigation includes breaking the chain of events leading from the
initial release to the full development of a fire scenario, reducing intensity and duration of
fire, and provision of protection for structural members from fire. The application of PFP
and the positioning of firewalls are of direct concern to the Structural discipline.
D.6.11 Fire MitigationFirewalls
Firewalls are given a rating derived from the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) classification
system for use on ships. The three main ratings used offshore are:
B - maintains stability and integrity for 30 minutes when exposed to a cellulosic fire.
The temperature rise of the cold face is limited to 140C for the period in minutes
specified in the rating.
July 2009 (E)
119 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
A - maintains stability and integrity for a period of 60 minutes when exposed to a

cellulosic fire. The temperature rise of the cold face is limited to 140C for the period
specified in the rating.
H - maintains stability and integrity for a period of 120 minutes when exposed to a
hydrocarbon fire. The temperature rise of the cold face is limited to 140C for the period
specified in the rating. Here, retaining stability and integrity means that the passage of
smoke and flame is prevented and that the load-bearing components of the barrier do not
reach a temperature in excess of 400C. Table D-6 gives the performance standards for
barriers according to their rating.
Table D-6: Performance Standards for Barriers by Rating
Classification
Stability and integrity duration

(minutes)
Insulation performance
(minutes)
H120
120
120
H60
120
60
H0
120
A60
60
60
A30
60
30
A15
60
15
A0
60
B15
30
15
B0
30
D.6.12 Fire MitigationPassive Fire Protection
The determination of the Passive Fire Protection (PFP) requirement shall be made after
completion of an appropriate level of structural analysis and after consideration of all
possible fire mitigation measures.
The application of PFP onto the exposed surface of the steelwork restricts the temperature
rise in the protected steel structure for the defined duration of the fire scenario. The PFP
thus limits the thermal stress levels in structural steel so that its load-bearing ability is not
compromised.
The thickness of the PFP would depend upon the performance standards. The erosive and
momentum effects of a jet fire shall also be considered to prevent scaling of PFP
materials.
D.7
Blast Response Analysis and Design

D.7.1 General
Safety critical elements required to operate and maintain integrity during or after an
accidental blast event shall have sufficient strength, protection, or redundancy to comply
with performance standards for a specified period after the initial event. Structural analysis
for blast loading shall be conducted to ensure that the escape routes and safe areas shall
survive during design blast events.
July 2009 (E)
120 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
The following areas are critical in assessing the structural response to blast loading:
1. Integrity of essential safety systems, supports for escape routes, and the Temporary
Refuge.
2. Integrity of primary structural steelwork leading to progressive collapse of the facility.
3. Integrity of secondary steelwork leading to collapse of a tall structure such as vertical
process vessels, drilling derricks, flare boom, crane pedestal, etc.
4. Integrity to riser supports.
5. Integrity of all structures that may cause escalating damage in general.
D.7.2 Analysis Methods
Blast response analysis for blast loading shall be performed at three levels of increasing
complexity.
1. Screening analysis.
2. Strength level analysis that considers a strength level design blast event where it is
required that the structure does not deform plastically and that the safety critical
elements remain operational.
3. Ultimate strength analysis that considers a ductility level design blast event and
utilizes reserve strengths of the structure.
A screening analysis shall be used as a conservative design basis or to assist in the
identification of structural components for further response assessment to ensure
compliance with performance criteria. The strength level analysis is a linear elastic
analysis with modified code checks, which provides a less conservative basis for the
design. If the strength level analysis fails to satisfy the performance criteria, an ultimate
strength analysis shall be performed. If the ultimate strength analysis fails to meet the
performance criteria, then blast mitigation and/or structural modification shall be
considered.
D.7.3 Analysis MethodsScreening Analysis
A screening analysis is essentially a design basis check, which consists of verifying the
basis of the design for the facility and determining if the methods used for the design are
acceptable in the context of design blast events. Application of the peak overpressure as a
static design load case with yield stress, as allowable stress is likely to result in a
conservative structure. Code check results from a static design load case may be useful in
identifying components of the structure for further attention.
Components may be analyzed in isolation as long as the interactions with the surrounding
through fixity and the applied loads are negligible or are represented in the component
model. Non-load bearing firewalls, blast walls, and panels shall be checked using Biggs
method. Sections of a plated deck shall also be checked using the same method. The actual
expected peak overpressure, rise time, and duration shall be used in these checks.
Buckling checks shall be performed to ensure that the full plastic capacity of a member
can develop. It will also be necessary to check the capacity of all barriers and their
supports to resist the full overpressure and rebound loads.
A major consideration in blast response is that deflections of the structure shall be limited
to allow escape. Typically the deflections into escape ways shall be limited to about
July 2009 (E)
121 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
15 mm. The allowable deflection into equipment spaces will depend on the clearances to
equipment. The deflections of the primary structure will normally be satisfactory if it
passes the normal strength or utilization checks. Blast and firewalls are however designed
to deflect to exploit the ductility of these items, so deflection checks for these items will be
necessary.
D.7.4 Analysis MethodsStrength Level Analysis
A strength level analysis is a conventional linear elastic analysis with modified code
checks. The dynamics of a blast event shall be accounted for by derivation of an
equivalent static load distribution for a strength level analysis. There are two options when
generating equivalent static loading:
1. Derive an equivalent static load distribution using a dynamic amplification factor.
2. Derive the equivalent static load level by the performance of a dynamic elastic time
stepping analysis to derive the general levels of response displacement and identify a
static load level that results in the same general levels of displacements.
A linear elastic structural response analysis shall be performed to represent the effect of a
blast event on the primary framing of an installation. The code checks may be accepted
with higher than normal utilization factors to allow for member plasticity, strain rate, and
strain hardening effects. Further checks may be necessary to ensure that deflections will
not impact on the usability of escape routes or cause further release of inventory.
can develop. These checks shall be made particularly for deck beams loaded from a blast
below as flanges usually in tension may be in compression during the blast.
For strength level analysis, the code checks may be accepted with higher than normal
utilization factors to allow for member plastic behavior, strain rate, and strain hardening
effects. Considering these enhancements, acceptable utilization factors may be 2.50 for a
tension member and 2.00 for members under bending and/or compression so long as the
member does not buckle under the blast loading.
D.7.5 Analysis MethodsUltimate Strength Analysis (Ductility Level Analysis)
The ultimate strength analysis method accounts for large displacements, load redistribution, material property changes, non-linear effects, and the dynamics of the
structure. This method of analysis takes into account the reserve strengths of the structure.
The ultimate strength analysis will be performed by applying functional loads (dead and
live loads) to the model first and then introducing time varying blast loads to the model
sequentially. For clad structural members, the overpressure load history is applied as
transient pressure loads to the model. For slender structural members that are unclad, the
transient blast drag loads predicted from blast wind velocities are applied to the model.
Structural failure is determined when a plastic collapse mechanism has developed, or
when unacceptably large deformations have developed.
can develop. These checks shall be made particularly for deck beams loaded from a blast
below as flanges usually in tension may be in compression during the blast.
July 2009 (E)
122 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
The ultimate strength analysis will look at extreme accidental conditions and shall assess
if the structure has sufficient capacity to allow safe evacuation of personnel following an
accidental blast event. Thus, plasticity and permanent deformations are acceptable. There
are generally two criteria to be satisfied:
1. Strain in welds shall not exceed 5 percent while strain in parent materials shall be
limited to 15 percent.
2. Deflections, these are dependent on surroundings, i.e., deck deflection limited due to pipe/
equipment supports, wall panel deflection limited to equipment/escape routes, etc.
Blast and fire walls are required to remain in place during the blast event without rupture
or disconnection from the supports. In some cases there may also be deflection limits if the
panel is likely to deflect into an equipment space or into an escape route.
Deformation limits may be defined in the following ways:
1. Based on FABIG Guidance Notes and the ASCE design guide, the nominal value for
beam deflection shall be taken as span/40. This is a typical value for low component
damage and corresponds to a support rotation of approximately 2 degrees.
2. Beam deflection limits are based on maintaining the integrity of piping and process
equipment rather than structural stability. The deck beam deflection criterion however
accounts for nominal allowable displacements to ensure that the integrity of the
process equipment and piping supports is not compromised.
3. Member shrinkage limits to prevent failure of supports and limit deck movement can
be controlled by limiting the lateral deflection of flexural members.
4. Ductility ratios obtained from the FEA shall be checked against Table D-7. The
ductility ratio limit for a Ductile Level Blast is 10.
Table D-7: Ductility Ratios
Structure
Limit Ductility Ratios()
Cantilever
Pinned Beam
Fixed Beam (end hinges)
Fixed Beam (mid-span hinges)
Notes:
y is the value of strain at elastic limit
p is the plastic strain limit
Sx is the plastic bending modulus
Zx is the elastic bending modulus
July 2009 (E)
123 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
D.7.6 Available Software
There are several software programs that perform blast response analysis for offshore steel
jacket platforms. Those currently available and the organizations that developed them
USFOS
ABAQUS / Explicit
ABAQUS (http://www.abaqus.com)
ANSYS
apply the blast load, and interpret results in order to ensure an accurate answer.
Other software can perform blast response analyses that are not listed here; however, they
that it uses a documented approach to perform the blast response analyses. The code shall
be tested or calibrated to perform the specific type of blast response analysis for fixed
platforms as described in this document. The user shall ask if there has been prior blast
response analysis work that can be reviewed or whether there are any benchmark
problems to demonstrate the softwares blast response analysis capability.
D.7.7 Modeling of StructureData Requirements
Blast Event Information. The following information for design blast events is required
from the Explosion Hazard Analysis (EHA) to assess the structural response to blast
loading:
1. Blast scenario description (cloud size, ignition location).

2. Idealized overpressure (peak overpressure, blast duration, and rise time) for plated
areas, such as decks and walls.
3. Drag loads and direction around the platform.
4. Time-histories of the various blast scenarios affecting a specific area and the relevant
lag between them.
Drawings. The following topsides drawings should be made available:
1. Topsides primary and secondary steel

2. General equipment layout
3. Equipment support details and connection details
4. Deck grating and plating locations
5. Fire and blast wall locations and ratings
For existing platforms, as built drawings shall be used, if possible. The drawings should
Weight Report. Topsides dead and operating loads should be made available. The
detailed breakdown of loading should be provided in the weight report.
platform, including damage, if any, such as dents, cracks, holes, or corrosion. Above-water
photos of the platform are critical for the engineer to provide a feel for the platform,
July 2009 (E)
124 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
such as overall configuration and size, but they also provide visual confirmation of the
amount of deck equipment, orientation, number of risers and wells, and deck elevation and
overall platform condition such as corrosion. These and other items that can be seen in the
photos should match what is in the drawings. If there is no match, these items need to be
field verified.
D.7.8 Modeling of StructureModeling Requirements
The topsides model shall include the three dimensional distribution of the stiffness of
topsides structures. The stiffness of the topsides structures shall be fully modeled so that
redistribution of load can occur. Reference should be made to the structural drawings for
the definition of geometry, member sizes, steel grades, etc. For the as-is condition of an
existing structure, reference should be made to the inspection records and repair records, if
available.
topsides.
The topsides shall be modeled to the jacket leg work points. The calculated jacket stiffness
shall then be applied as spring supports to the topsides model. A sensitivity study shall be
carried out in order to determine the equivalent stiffness of the jacket support.
It is conservative not to include the restraint from the cladding or barriers in the primary
frame computer model. In some circumstances it is advisable not to include the cladding
as plate elements as the shear restraint from these elements will be overestimated in a
small deflection elastic model. This applies particularly if an external blast load is
considered that puts the side walls with respect to the pressure into shear. In checking the
primary structure, it is conservative to include the loads from barriers but to ignore their
strength contribution.
D.7.9 Modeling of StructureDesign Loads
Dead Loads. The structural self-weight associated with the actual structural members that
are modeled shall be calculated and applied automatically within the structural analysis
software. All other dead loads shall be modeled as applied mass at the nodes where the
process equipment, piping, electrical trays, instrumentation, buildings, or cranes are
located. For larger objects, the mass shall be distributed evenly across the relevant nodes.
Live Loads. As with the dead load, all live loads shall be modeled as lump masses in
order to account for inertial loads. For an accidental blast event the maximum live load
shall be taken as 75 percent of the design operating live load. Since the live load has an
effect on the structural response to blast, i.e., the natural period will decrease with less
mass applied, sensitivity to the amount of live load shall be performed.
Two levels of live load, one at 0 percent and another at 75 percent of the design operating
live load, shall be modeled in separate analyses in order to obtain the structures envelop
of natural period. The effects of the natural period range on the dynamic amplification of
applied blast load will be investigated to determine that the most onerous level of live load
is applied during the assessment.
Live loads due to helicopter and crane operations shall not be considered. The drilling rig
shall be positioned in the most unfavorable location relative to the fire scenario being
considered.
July 2009 (E)
125 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Environmental Loads. Due to the accidental nature of blast events, environmental

loading need not be considered in the structural response to blast analyses.
Blast Loads. Blast loads are applied as time varying loads.
Load Combinations. Dead and live combinations shall ideally be considered in the
analysis. The blast loads shall be combined with dead and live loads.
D.7.10 Good Practice in Detailing of Designs
Good practice in regard to structural detailing to optimize performance in the event of the
occurrence of a blast event shall be adopted. Careful detailing of a structure may
considerably increase the overall capacity of the structure to resist blast loads with little or
no cost implications on the design. The extent of structural modifications required to
upgrade the blast resistance of a structure is often small. It is usually a joint, connection
detail, or a weld that limits the overall blast capacity.
D.7.11 Good Practice in Detailing of DesignsDuctile Response under Dynamic
Loading
Blast loads are dynamic in nature; capacity benefits may be obtained by designing barriers
to respond in such a way that the material reserves of strength are mobilized by ductile
response.
Ductile connections for barriers such as blast and fire walls shall be designed to delay the
response of the barrier so that it reaches its peak of response long after the pressure load
has subsided. The peak strains and stresses in the connections and the wall are hence
reduced. This form of late response may also take advantage of any suction phase in the
loading, which may further reduce the peak response.
Supports will only be subject to reactions corresponding to the peak resistance of the
structure rather than the peak load, if plastic deformation of the structure or connections
occurs. This may reduce the support reactions below those indicated by the peak load with
consequent increase in nominal capacity for the structure and supports. The connections
shall, however, be designed assuming the highest (least conservative) resistance for the
structure taking into account strain rate and strain hardening effects.
Ductile supports are less vulnerable to material and geometric imperfections than brittle
details making capacity prediction more robust and reliable.
D.7.12 Good Practice in Detailing of DesignsTypical Connection Details for
Barriers
Blast and fire walls usually span from floor to ceiling and are attached at their top and
bottom edges to the primary beams. The connections allow for rotation usually at the top
edge and do not transmit the very large membrane forces to the supports.
Corrugations for blast panels usually run vertically but from the point of view of
minimizing turbulence and hence overpressure horizontal corrugations are preferable. The
use of horizontal corrugations usually implies the need for ductile supports from the
columns.
Connection of blast panels along the vertical edge to a column is usually avoided. If it is
unavoidable then a balanced tension load across the column section is arranged by having
similar panels on either side of the column. Typical upper support details suitable for
July 2009 (E)
126 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
moderate overpressures up to 2 bar peak are shown in Figure D-4. The details allow
rotation of the top edge of the blast panel and ductile response of the panel. This rotational
freedom may also be required during fire loading as the panel may tend to bow out in the
direction of the heat source. There is also freedom for the connection to accommodate
shortening of the wall span due to deflection during blasts and bowing in fires.
Figure D-4: Blast Wall Upper Support Details
Typical lower support details are given in Figure D-5. The lower connection detail has to
transmit shear and vertical loads to the deck. The vertical loads mainly result from the
vertical reaction at the top of the wall and wall shortening due to mid span deflection.
There may also be transmitted vertical loads from the pressures on connected floors and
ceilings. Detail (a) of Figure D-5 has rotational capacity whereas the other details rely on
the top connection for this.
D.7.13 Good Practice in Detailing of DesignsWelds
The details shown in the previous section are for a stainless steel panel. It should be borne
in mind that welds between carbon steel and stainless steel typically have weld material
weaker than the stainless steel. Welding of stainless steel also requires the use of an inert
gas shield process; access to the weld shall be considered.
Full strength welds, while not required in other circumstances, shall be used where
possible as weld failure is a common cause of failure. Weld profiles with inherently low
stress concentration factors shall be used where possible.
July 2009 (E)
127 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Figure D-5: Blast Wall Lower Support Details
D.7.14 Good Practice in Detailing of DesignsPrimary Structure-Choice of

Sections
The choice of sections for the primary structure is rarely governed by blast load cases. At
an early project phase, it may be possible to choose the framing members to be sections
capable of developing a plastic hinge before buckling occurs. This may be particularly
effective for a temporary refuge or an area expected to be vulnerable to blast loads. This
approach will eliminate the need for sophisticated buckling checks for members beyond
the elastic range.
D.7.15 Good Practice in Detailing of DesignsFraming Design
During a blast a compartment or module will be exposed to large internal pressure loads
and if venting is asymmetric then the module will also be exposed to large out-of-balance
horizontal loads. These patterns of loading are not commonly experienced offshore for any
other load cases. As the design overpressure increases the blast load cases become more
dominant making the consideration of novel structural schemes necessary.
These internal pressure loads may put flanges normally in tension into compression giving
rise to a need for stabilization of these components. The overpressure pulse may also have
a negative or suction phase, which gives loading in the opposite direction. Even if a
suction phase is not present, structural rebound may occur giving inertia loads in a
direction opposite to the pressure loading on connections and ceiling beams subjected to a
blast from below. A load, equal to one third of the positive phase load and in the opposite
direction, shall be considered.
July 2009 (E)
128 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Dynamic pressure or drag loads will act on slender members across vents. It is rarely a
problem to design such members to resist these loads but it may be advisable to avoid
positioning such members in these areas.
Internal pressure loads are resisted very efficiently by members in pure tension, which
may be floor to ceiling ties if space and access permits. Typical end connection details are
given in Figure D-6. These connections shall be as strong as the tie members. In some
cases a compensation plate may be needed to strengthen the deck at these connections.
Figure D-6: End Connection for Floor to Ceiling Ties
For decks, continuous construction shall be used for both primary and secondary beams
(stringers) as they have good blast resistance. The choice of similar sections and spans
also has the advantage of giving similar response bay-to-bay, which is advantageous for
piping and vessel supports.
If the module frame is constructed of similar beam and column sections, then a number of
ring beams are set up that have good blast resistance. This may not be cost effective for
pressures below 2 bar, but above that threshold this option becomes more realistic as other
demands on the structure become relatively less important. Knee braces across the corners
of the module are also effective in increasing blast resistance if space permits.
July 2009 (E)
129 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Figure D-7 shows a main deck designed to resist 3 bar overpressure. Note the regular
construction and the floor to ceiling ties along the center of the module. At these pressures,
membrane forces in the deck are considerable and stabilization of the deck plate is
necessary using V stiffeners welded to the underside of the deck plate.
Figure D-7: Deck Frame for 3 Bar Module
D.7.16 Good Practice in Detailing of DesignsBarriers and Blast Walls
The design of stainless steel blast walls is dealt with in depth in the references.
Stainless steel is a good material for blast walls as it exhibits a large strain rate effect, is
very ductile and incidentally has good strength properties over 500C.
Blast wall sections are of two main types, stiffened plate and corrugated panels, which
may themselves be stiffened. Typical blast wall panel cross sections are shown in Figure
D-8. The widths, thicknesses, and depths of these profiles determine the cross-section
classification for the panel, which are defined in the references.
July 2009 (E)
130 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
Figure D-8: Blast Wall Panel Sections
There will usually be a need for pipe work and cabling to penetrate blast walls. Where
possible, these penetrations shall be at the positions of smallest deflection of the wall, for
example, at the top and bottom of the wall for a wall spanning between decks. Some
typical penetration frames are shown in Figure D-9. The frames are designed to restore the
bending strength of the panel in the longitudinal direction
Figure D-9: Blast Wall Penetration Details
July 2009 (E)
131 of 134

D.8
FFS-SU-5217-A
Fire and Blast Interaction

D.8.1 General
Fire and blast are often synergistic. Fires may occur after a blast has occurred; a blast may
be one of the escalation consequences of a fire. The consequences of combined fire and
blast scenarios with either component occurring first shall be considered in the structural
design or assessment. The fire and blast response analyses shall be performed together; the
effects of one on the other carefully shall be analyzed.
D.8.2 Fire Response of Blast Damaged Structures
For the effect of a fire on a blast-damaged structure, it will be necessary to check if the
PFP is still functional. This will involve a theoretical deflection check particularly on
barriers to check for PFP de-bonding.
Columns are in practice rarely vulnerable to blast loading because drag loads are not
usually sufficient to cause failure, especially if the column is put into tension by the blast.
Blast walls are usually attached floor to ceiling and columns between blast panels are in a
balanced tension field horizontally.
It is possible that a blast will cause the release of some of the hydrocarbon inventory,
which may subsequently burn. The resulting elevated temperatures may cause the
distorted structure failure. In the case of a column, the blast may have distorted the
member giving an increase to the eccentricity of the axial or an in-plane load insufficient
to cause collapse on its own. The effect of the fire loading is to reduce the stiffness and
yield stress of the member causing collapse under the static in-plane loads. The yield
strength and Youngs modulus against temperature shown in Table D-2 shall be used in
combination with an applied moment to represent the eccentricity of the axial load to
determine the failure temperature of the column.
In the case of a strength level analysis, the code checks shall be performed as described in
Section D.6.2 so long as the eccentricity due to deformation is represented by applied
moments. An ultimate strength analysis shall take the initial deformations into account
and also correctly represent the load redistribution that occurs on member failure.
In the case of a typical ceiling beam, the static out-of-plane equipment load will generally
be below the level of 0.3 of the static failure load at ambient temperature. The member
shall also be assumed not to have failed prior to the application of the fire load. In this case
failure of the member will be at the same temperature level as the un-deformed structure
using a strength level analysis method. This case has therefore not been investigated
further. A similar floor member need not usually be investigated because it is unlikely to
receive sufficient fire loading.
D.8.3 Blast Response of Structures at Elevated Temperatures
It is possible that a confined fire may cause the failure of cladding or panels, in which
case, the increased ventilation may provoke the unburned gaseous fuel and air in the
compartment to explode. This scenario is considered less likely than that examined above,
but may be investigated by calculation of the blast resistance of the un-deformed structure
at elevated temperatures using the new material properties appropriate to the member
temperature. In the analyses the material stiffness and strength is assumed to reduce
according to Table D-2.
July 2009 (E)
132 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
In the case of a column that has not collapsed or buckled under static in-plane loads, the
column is in its undamaged state apart from reduced stiffness and strength. The analysis
then proceeds as described in Section D.7 on blast loading and response with the
appropriate strength and stiffness characteristics applied to each member.
Consider the case of a typical ceiling beam in which the fire and blast occur in the same
compartment. The initial condition is of a heated ceiling beam exposed to a blast from
below. If the static loads are assumed not to have caused failure, the beam is only likely to
fail in rebound, i.e., after it returns from its maximum deflected blast position, because the
dead and blast loads initially oppose each other. Failure in rebound may be calculated
using a modified Biggs analysis taking into account any suction phase in the loading. In
any case the (equivalent static) blast failure load will usually be greater than the static load
the beam has sustained during the fire.
Floor beams are unlikely to be at an elevated temperature for a single compartment fire
scenario.
D.8.4 Pipes, Vessels, and Supports
It is important to check ceiling beams for failure under combined fire and blast load cases
as beams supporting vessels above are likely to cause escalation if more inventory is
released.
Analysis of medium bore piping for a fire preceding a blast shall be carried out using the
modified material properties, taking full account of the contents at elevated temperatures.
For a blast preceding a fire, if rupture of the piping has not occurred under the blast, then
the fire is unlikely to cause failure.
Blast-induced movement of the vessels, and equipment to which it is attached, usually
governs the response of small-bore piping. If similar section properties are used for the
supports on a pipe run along its length, then blast response results in compatible
displacements of the pipe and failure of the pipe is less likely to occur.
D.9
References Used in the Preparation of Appendix D
1. API RP 2FB, Recommended Practice for the Design of Offshore Facilities Against Fire and
Blast Loading, 1st Edition, April 2006.
2. API RP 2A - WSD, Recommended Practice for the Planning, Designing and Construction of
October 2005.
3. ISO 13702, Petroleum and natural gas industries - Control and mitigation of fires and
explosions on offshore production installations - Requirements and guidelines.
5. FABIG, Interim Guidance Notes for the Design and Protection of Topside Structures against
Explosion and Fire, January 1992.
6. FABIG, Fire resistant design of offshore structures, Technical note 1.
7. FABIG, Technical note on Explosion mitigation systems, Technical note 2.
8. FABIG, Use of ultimate strength techniques for fire resistant design of offshore structures,
Technical note 3.
9. FABIG, Explosion resistant design of offshore structures, Technical note 4.
July 2009 (E)
133 of 134
FFS-SU-5217-A
10. FABIG, Design guide for stainless steel blast walls, Technical note 5.
11. Biggs, J. M., Introduction to Structural Dynamics, McGraw Hill, 1964.
12. BS EN 1991-1-7:2006, Eurocode 1, Actions on Structures / Part 1-7: General Actions Accidental Actions, July 2006.
13. BS EN 1993-1-2:2005, Eurocode 3, Design of Steel Structures / Part 1-2: General Rules Structural Fire Design, April 2005.
14. Selby, C. A., and Burgan, B. A., Blast and Fire Engineering for Topside Structures - Phase 2,
Final Summary Report, SCI Publication number 253, 1998.
15. Veritec, JIP-Design Against Accidental Loads, Report No. 88-3127, 1988.
16. Norwegian Technology Standards Institute, Design of Steel Structures, Norsok standard N004, October 2004.
17. Skallerud, B. and Amdahl, J., Nonlinear Analysis of Offshore Structures, Research Studies
Press Ltd., 2002.
18. Norwegian Technology Standards Institute, Norske Standard N-003, Action and Action
20. American Society of Civil Engineers, Design of Blast Resistant Buildings in Petrochemical
Facilities, 1997.
July 2009 (E)
134 of 134

Ffs-su-5217-A - Design of Fixed Platform Structures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ffs-su-5217-A - Design of Fixed Platform Structures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN OF FIXED PLATFORM STRUCTURES

APPLICATION: FIXED PLATFORMS

This document is the confidential property of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Neither

General revision to CIV-SU-1.19

Document number change only.

General revision to FFS-SU-5217

Reference to CPM-SU-2.03 changed to

July 2009 (E)

2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.

Design of Fixed Platform Structures

General Design Considerations ................................................................................6

Jacket Design Considerations ................................................................................11

Deck Design Considerations ..................................................................................38

July 2009 (E)

2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.

Design of Fixed Platform Structures

6.3 ......In-Service Analysis .........................................................................................39

Appurtenance Design Considerations ...................................................................45

Design Documentation ............................................................................................51

Appendix A Assessment of Wind-Induced Vortex Shedding .......................................52

July 2009 (E)

2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.

Design of Fixed Platform Structures

Helidecks on Offshore Installations

Materials and Application of Painting and Protective Coatings

Structural Steel and Other Materials

Structural Welding and Inspection

Aluminum Alloy Anodes for Offshore Platform Cathodic Protection

Industry Codes and Standards

Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed

Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed

Specification for the Fabrication of Structural Steel Pipe

Bulletin on Stability Design of Cylindrical Shells

Det Norske Veritas (DNV)

Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures

Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads

Free Spanning Pipelines

International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA)

July 2009 (E)

Guidance on the Use of Cable Laid Slings and Grommets

2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.

Design of Fixed Platform Structures

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

Steel Wire Ropes for General PurposesMinimum Requirements

Wire Rope Slings for General PurposesCharacteristics and Specifications

General Guidelines for Marine Transportations

Offshore Technology Conference

Recent Developments in the Design of Grouted Connections

United States Coast Guard (USCG)

July 2009 (E)

2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.

Design of Fixed Platform Structures

GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Minimum Design Basis Content

Water resistivities, cathodic protection criteria, coating requirement.

July 2009 (E)

2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.

Design of Fixed Platform Structures

July 2009 (E)

2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.

Design of Fixed Platform Structures

3. Design of the jacket cathodic-protection system shall be in accordance with

Allowable Stress Multiplier (1 of 2)